1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a flame war

[Choobus]

snap crafter wrote

Yeah, it's always the man who's abusive, the woman is always innocent, right? Why else assume the man is abusive.

Another prick from the mall said that single motherhood should be avoided at all costs

I implied that this was in fact incorrect, and that despite the negative aspects associated with single motherhood, it was preferable to being in a relationship with an abusive man.

Can you see where you went wrong now?

Choobus wrote

Another prick from the mall said that single motherhood should be avoided at all costs

I implied that this was in fact incorrect, and that despite the negative aspects associated with single motherhood, it was preferable to being in a relationship with an abusive man.

Can you see where you went wrong now?

Can you name another instance?

[Gnosital]

Another brick in the wall wrote

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html



http://www.childrensjustice.org/fatherlessness2.htm

Correlation is not causation.

Youthful simplistic idealism that knows all the answers to the world's problems is exceptionally boring.

[Gnosital]

snap crafter wrote

Can you name another instance?

Snap, stop pissing in the wheaties, please?

Gnosital wrote

Snap, stop pissing in the wheaties, please?

Absolutely not!

Here's a question for you, would you give a child to a single mother with self-destructive tendencies or with the father?

Shortbus wrote

Another prick from the mall said that single motherhood should be avoided at all costs

I implied that this was in fact incorrect, and that despite the negative aspects associated with single motherhood, it was preferable to being in a relationship with an abusive man.

Can you see where you went wrong now?

OK, maybe "at all costs" is extreme, but based on the available evidence, it is something to be avoided.

Also, there's the false dichotomy of single mother on welfare vs. abusive marriage. Adoption is certainly a possibility.

Even Shortbus should be able to agree with that.

Gnosital wrote

Correlation is not causation.

Youthful simplistic idealism that knows all the answers to the world's problems is exceptionally boring.

I never said I did. However:

"Ninety percent of single-parent families are headed by females. Not surprisingly, single mothers with dependent children have the highest rate of poverty across all demographic groups (Olson & Banyard, 1993). Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families. The rate of poverty is even higher in African-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor."

http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/famlif...1/bullart1.htm

What do you say to that?

[Gnosital]

snap crafter wrote

Absolutely not!

Here's a question for you, would you give a child to a single mother with self-destructive tendencies or with the father?

That has fuck all to do with anything, except maybe your personal issues, but to respond to just one of the aspects of your multifaceted strawman question, that depends on how fucked up the dad is. Duh.

[Gnosital]

Another brick in the wall wrote

I never said I did. However:

"Ninety percent of single-parent families are headed by females. Not surprisingly, single mothers with dependent children have the highest rate of poverty across all demographic groups (Olson & Banyard, 1993). Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families. The rate of poverty is even higher in African-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor."

http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/famlif...1/bullart1.htm

What do you say to that?

I say:

Gnosital wrote

Correlation is not causation.

Youthful simplistic idealism that knows all the answers to the world's problems is exceptionally boring.

The children of single mothers are more likely to be impoverished. Impoverished children are more likely to be juvenile delinquents. Juvenile delinquents are much more likely to become criminals. So, reducing the number of single mothers would reduce the number criminals.

Agree or disagree?

[Gnosital]

Another brick in the wall wrote

The children of single mothers are more likely to be impoverished. Impoverished children are more likely to be juvenile delinquents. Juvenile delinquents are much more likely to become criminals. So, reducing the number of single mothers would reduce the number criminals.

Agree or disagree?

Correlation is not causation.

Neither is a string of correlations.

But you agree there is a relationship between poverty, juvenile delinquency, and crime?

[Choobus]

snap crafter wrote

Can you name another instance?

Another instance of you missing the point entirely? I could, of course, but I feel it would be churlish to do so. If you wish to start a seperate discussion about the points you are attempting to raise, why not do so in a new thread?

You went off the rails, Choobus, when you assumed that the women these studies are chiefly concerned with were ever in a relationship with the father(s) of their children, at all. Some of them, of course, were and are single for a variety of reasons.

In fact, what many of these studies are concerned with is a phenomenon that hits the 2nd and third generation welfare class so very hard-- that is, girls and women who have no expectation of ever being married but every intention of having children and men and boys who have no intention of marrying but fully expect to have children. The women are, quite literally, married to the state and supported by it.

I have seen this up close at second hand. My stepmother works for a state welfare agency and has for many years. The women she deals with have never known another way of life. Their mothers were on welfare; their grandmothers, too, in many cases. They are poor and uneducated but, far worse, cannot even envision another way of life. It is very hard to plot your escape, when you don't know that you are a prisoner.

[Gnosital]

Naturally, Lilytards provides us with the usual wealth of "evidence" to back up mere opinion paraded as fact.

I say to you as well, that correlation is not causation. And the plural of anecdote is not data.


Before you pop in on a discussion and add yet another of your unassailable pearls o' divine wisdom, perhaps you should read a bit more of the thread to get the context of the argument. I get so embarrassed for you when you make yourself look like an idiot. Choobus made no such assumption; Snap was shit stirring, because he's in the mood for it, and here you are trying to make yourself look smart by nit-picking out of context. Really, your lack of self esteem is starting to look quite pathetic.