REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Effects of Family Structure on Crime
- Thread starter Mike_Jones
- Start date
You claimed that leftist policies CAUSED the break up of the traditional family.
So far the only evidence you produced is that it's a "foregone conclusion".
Squidleys evidence was that's it's "common sense".
When you hate women to the degree you do, anything that strokes your bias is a foregone conclusion.
Nobody who likes women solely blames them for getting pregnant because "they control access" and talks sh!t about single mothers and their children like they are garbage.
All without a shred of evidence that government policy is a motivating factor.
Last edited:
And it's not the first time that you used stats as a proof of causation, you do it with black people and crime too.
Particularly Southern ones.
casa:
Wonder why that is - any idea?
-----
Extremely high rates of infidelity.
And btw, the talk about absentee fathers promoting less-than-stellar quality children does seem to hold water quite well with the Trump children.
"Nobody who likes women solely blames them for getting pregnant because "they control access" and talk sh!t about single mothers and their children like they are garbage. "
Women and kids, huh? You keep injecting the kids into my criticisms despite me not criticizing them.
I like women (and men) who are competent and act responsibly. I like people who actively work to overcome their various weaknesses and failings. Including the failings of our own upbringing - which most people have to one degree or another.
Women control who they have sex with and under which conditions, and they control whether or not they're going to get pregnant and whether or not they're going to terminate the pregnancy. That's not nothing.
Shoot, a not-insignificant certain percentage of the men who are referred to as the "father" are actually not the biological father. Those choices are on those women as well, and they sure as sht don't speak to those moms being virtuous people.
The point is that while there is no singular answers for these issues, the stats you despise so much do indicate to the role of personal responsibility in these outcomes. Outcomes that literally could not occur to this degree if not for the social nets that financially enable some of these women to marry the State instead of the father.
Women and kids, huh? You keep injecting the kids into my criticisms despite me not criticizing them.
I like women (and men) who are competent and act responsibly. I like people who actively work to overcome their various weaknesses and failings. Including the failings of our own upbringing - which most people have to one degree or another.
Women control who they have sex with and under which conditions, and they control whether or not they're going to get pregnant and whether or not they're going to terminate the pregnancy. That's not nothing.
Shoot, a not-insignificant certain percentage of the men who are referred to as the "father" are actually not the biological father. Those choices are on those women as well, and they sure as sht don't speak to those moms being virtuous people.
The point is that while there is no singular answers for these issues, the stats you despise so much do indicate to the role of personal responsibility in these outcomes. Outcomes that literally could not occur to this degree if not for the social nets that financially enable some of these women to marry the State instead of the father.
If you performed better as a parent than your father did then I think that's great. I think I'm doing better than my father did in certain respects and I'm hopeful my kids will outperform me.
And for sure, parenting is about way more than merely being present or sending a check.
But as far as people evolving in the opposite direction from the better example their parents set? I've got no use for that and I'm not going to call an incompetent (and/or unethical) person stunning and brave just to "be nice".
And for sure, parenting is about way more than merely being present or sending a check.
But as far as people evolving in the opposite direction from the better example their parents set? I've got no use for that and I'm not going to call an incompetent (and/or unethical) person stunning and brave just to "be nice".
Nobody is asking you to call single mothers brave, we are just asking you not to be an asshole to them.
But no.
The entire binary premise that it's solely woman's fault if she gets pregnant because "she control's access" is stupid and offensive because it discount for million other factors at play.
On top of that, yes, people make wrong choices and make mistakes - that doesn't automatically makes them pieces of sh!t who don't deserve help.
Especially the children of single mothers who did not make any wrong choices.
The entire libertarian notion that everything is a matter choice and those who make "wrong" choices can go fvck themselves because libertarians never make any, is not a Western Culture value.
Didn't you marry a religious nut and then divorced her?
You are not infallible, nobody is.
But no.
The entire binary premise that it's solely woman's fault if she gets pregnant because "she control's access" is stupid and offensive because it discount for million other factors at play.
On top of that, yes, people make wrong choices and make mistakes - that doesn't automatically makes them pieces of sh!t who don't deserve help.
Especially the children of single mothers who did not make any wrong choices.
The entire libertarian notion that everything is a matter choice and those who make "wrong" choices can go fvck themselves because libertarians never make any, is not a Western Culture value.
Didn't you marry a religious nut and then divorced her?
You are not infallible, nobody is.
You're horrible at building strawmen.
Competency does not require perfection (or infallibility). I have good reason to anticipate that most other drivers on the road are competent insofar as operating their vehicles safely enough for us to successfully share the road with one another. I also have good reason to anticipate that more of these parents are capable of making better decisions, mostly because parents in the U.S. have previously demonstrated that higher degree of competency:
U.S. Census: The majority of children live with two parents
"Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children living in families with two parents decreased from 88 to 69. Of those 50.7 million children living in families with two parents, 47.7 million live with two married parents and 3.0 million live with two unmarried parents.
During the 1960-2016 period, the percentage of children living with only their mother nearly tripled from 8 to 23 percent and the percentage of children living with only their father increased from 1 to 4 percent. The percentage of children not living with any parent increased slightly from 3 to 4 percent."...
No matter what, it's obviously choice and opportunity driving these trends, not lack of choice or lack of opportunity.
Competency does not require perfection (or infallibility). I have good reason to anticipate that most other drivers on the road are competent insofar as operating their vehicles safely enough for us to successfully share the road with one another. I also have good reason to anticipate that more of these parents are capable of making better decisions, mostly because parents in the U.S. have previously demonstrated that higher degree of competency:
U.S. Census: The majority of children live with two parents
"Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children living in families with two parents decreased from 88 to 69. Of those 50.7 million children living in families with two parents, 47.7 million live with two married parents and 3.0 million live with two unmarried parents.
During the 1960-2016 period, the percentage of children living with only their mother nearly tripled from 8 to 23 percent and the percentage of children living with only their father increased from 1 to 4 percent. The percentage of children not living with any parent increased slightly from 3 to 4 percent."...
No matter what, it's obviously choice and opportunity driving these trends, not lack of choice or lack of opportunity.
Yes, society is constantly changing and evolving.
What a discovery you made.
The claim that "leftist policies" caused the change is bullshit.
The claim that it's solely woman's fault if she gets pregnant because "she controls access" and that she deserves no help because of it, is fvcking gross and untrue.
It's such a rigid, binary outlook on life.
I don't get the constant allusions to morality and ethics in your posts...again, is someone
claiming single moms are more ethical or are otherwise set an aspirational ethical standard?
...are laws being implemented based on this falsely ascribed morality?
are they benefiting in any way from this other than lip service?
I mean...I would just laugh at the feminists and move on.
in the end, it just comes off as a bunch of moralizing about women's bodies that ignores
the fact that they bear the brunt of the risk and cost for sexual activity; the only perfect
form of contraception is abstinence....taken to it's logical end, your position appears to
boil down to:
don't have sex and if you do have sex make sure it's with a person you know will be a
good father and husband for at least the next 19 years.
claiming single moms are more ethical or are otherwise set an aspirational ethical standard?
...are laws being implemented based on this falsely ascribed morality?
are they benefiting in any way from this other than lip service?
I mean...I would just laugh at the feminists and move on.
in the end, it just comes off as a bunch of moralizing about women's bodies that ignores
the fact that they bear the brunt of the risk and cost for sexual activity; the only perfect
form of contraception is abstinence....taken to it's logical end, your position appears to
boil down to:
don't have sex and if you do have sex make sure it's with a person you know will be a
good father and husband for at least the next 19 years.
Like I said, people were making different choices back in the day even though they had far fewer resources and alternatives. That's a fact.
I think the outcome WRT the kids has demonstrated itself to be a negative. If you think it's a positive then these are opinions we can discuss. I also think that the social and gov't structures that have enabled these choices is a significant factor without which a lot of these choices could not - and arguably would not - have been made.
Why does anything have to drive the trends?
Society changed dramatically in the past 50 years when it comes to women's rights and you can't stand it.
You want them back in the kitchen where they belong. Make me a sandwich!
Another fun fact for you gramps, it's not the 1960s anymore.
Sry.
There's no "back in the day".
Assimate or GTFO
"Another fun fact for you gramps, it's not the 1960s anymore.
Sry.
There's no "back in the day".
Assimate or GTFO "
You obviously think this is a good trend. Good for you.
"Back in the day" most certainly does exist, and it stands as a demonstration of what people were capable and willing to do. It's not nothing. These trends are not occurring due to forces these individuals cannot control. People in 2019 do not have fewer alternatives than people did in 1960 or 1980 or even 2000. If they're making different choices it's because they want to.
Sry.
There's no "back in the day".
Assimate or GTFO "
You obviously think this is a good trend. Good for you.
"Back in the day" most certainly does exist, and it stands as a demonstration of what people were capable and willing to do. It's not nothing. These trends are not occurring due to forces these individuals cannot control. People in 2019 do not have fewer alternatives than people did in 1960 or 1980 or even 2000. If they're making different choices it's because they want to.
ok, so now we've hit the bone...good.
I would say that negative outcomes are convincingly demonstrated by the
data despite that fact that, to the other gentleman's point, A LOT of things
have changed in our society in the intervening 50 years.
from a purely economic perspective, incentivizing/subsidizing bad behavior
is not a wise thing for the government to do...wether it be child credits for
financial aid recipients or endless unemployment/disability benefits.
BUT...
how orwellian do you want to get here?
do you:
1) eliminate welfare child credits altogether?
2) limit it to one and done?
3) require (temporary) sterilization to continue to receive support?
4) ...other?