Reply With Quote
Percentage is, in this case, more important than raw numbers, as it is more useful to making generalizations about the population of children as a whole. IMO.
Thank you!
Solid data.
Now we have identified a fact.
I would even go so far as to say it is a problem, as having two parents seems to be beneficial to children, in general.
Now for the trillion dollar question.
What do we do about it?
Percentage is, in this case, more important than raw numbers, as it is more useful to making generalizations about the population of children as a whole. IMO.
How do we avoid ensian squalor?First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and des ute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.
I don't have a solution. I never suggested I had a solution. I simply stated that there might be causality between the programs championed by liberals exacerbating the very problems they were "designed" to solve. I have some thoughts, revolving around the concept of "you get what you pay for" - but was hoping for an active discussion; I don't want to poison the well with any easily countered, poorly thought out suggestions. No better way to chase off potential allies.Then, give me a solution, and have that solution sketched out in terms of costs and benefits.
Nope; and that's just one chart; there is much more. The African American, and Hispanic rates are shocking.I know teen pregnancies are down overall. This strongly suggests to me that this one part, at least, is factually incorrect.
Fantastic; we are in complete agreement; call me on bull ; I can take it.You want me to be in your political party, I'm on board, so let's get to at least identifying real problems, because I would hate to spend time and effort on non-real problems.
Try again.
Everybody gets visited by three ghosts?
Channeling boutons?
You said that welfare increased crime. Well the correlation is not there. Really though the narrative in law enforcement circles is about how crime is going down overall and that goes back to his comments about you having on your information blocking suit.
And children raised by one person rather than two are less well off? Who woulda thunk it? I am talking about the use of the word 'legitimate.' It has it's own inherent semantics and that you are oblivious to them just further goes to illustrate the point about your bubble, bubble boy.
And illustrate my point? What point? That you think I am a liberal? Don't mistake my disdain for the GOP and evangelical types for liberalism. I would go through my position stances to once again demonstrate how I am not a 'liberal' but I also suspect you cannot deviate from your dual paradigm anyway. Calling children illegitimate is wrong no matter how you turn it.
Yeah, i was wrong. I was thinking of a percentage of the single whole population and not a percentage of each respective individual population.
Legitimate vs Illegitimate are the words, I'm sorry if if you don't like them - that they offend you. I've never thought of them in a literal sense, tbh.
Channeling boutons?
You said that welfare increased crime. Well the correlation is not there. Really though the narrative in law enforcement circles is about how crime is going down overall and that goes back to his comments about you having on your information blocking suit.
And children raised by one person rather than two are less well off? Who woulda thunk it? I am talking about the use of the word 'legitimate.' It has it's own inherent semantics and that you are oblivious to them just further goes to illustrate the point about your bubble, bubble boy.
And illustrate my point? What point? That you think I am a liberal? Don't mistake my disdain for the GOP and evangelical types for liberalism. I would go through my position stances to once again demonstrate how I am not a 'liberal' but I also suspect you cannot deviate from your dual paradigm anyway. Calling children illegitimate is wrong no matter how you turn it.
And are you mistaking me for a bible-thumper as I am mistaking you for a liberal?
Where does the authority to legitimize a childbirth come from? You do know what legitimate means right? I'll help:
le·git·i·mate (l-jt-mt)
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
One would hope.
Nice to see everyone getting along. Now if congress can only play so nice.
Fuzzy does have a point there though.
The word is a bit archaic, something like "eskimo" for Innuit peoples and "oriental" for Asians.
We could probably find a better word that doesn't have the historic baggage, at the risk of being politically correct. FWIW.
Not that I think it hugely important. It is far less important than finding solutions, to me.
All I ask is that we try to base things on some rational evidence. Darrin beat you to it. He does that every once in a while, just with my opinion of him, no doubt.
I don't have a solution. I never suggested I had a solution. I simply stated that there might be causality between the programs championed by liberals exacerbating the very problems they were "designed" to solve. I have some thoughts, revolving around the concept of "you get what you pay for" - but was hoping for an active discussion; I don't want to poison the well with any easily countered, poorly thought out suggestions. No better way to chase off potential allies.
Nope; and that's just one chart; there is much more. The African American, and Hispanic rates are shocking.
Fantastic; we are in complete agreement; call me on bull ; I can take it.
My thing:
Kids with no fathers (or mothers occasionally) around are inevitable. Have always existed, exist now, obviously, and will always exist.
We can discourage them with a total lack of assistance, which will reduce the numbers as a very likely result, at the cost of having kids living in squalor that will shock the conscience, and likely force us to deal with violent predators and the costs that entails.
We can help them. This will increase the numbers, and mitigate the worst effects of poverty.
--We can wave our hands and hope that charity will pick up the slack, which I am certain will not happen to a degree sufficient to the problem.
--We can have government programs of some sort.
Generally, I am not a fan of punishing children for the sins and/or failings of their parents. That I find both short-sighted and immoral. Denying someone help when they need it clearly falls in this category, IMO.
gotta get them through the birth......then they can ing die.
In a social (western) context seems like #2 would apply ie: defined as within wedlock absent rape.
So crime is down and out of wedlock births are leveling out.
Does government get credit for that?
I don't think out of wedlock births were leveling out in 95 (same pattern), and I don't think they are leveling out now.
You don't know what he believed on his deathbed.
For all you know, he could be in heaven waiting for you.
Awkward...
(sorry, back off topic. video is mildly amusing)
And with the various municipalities jacked up reporting of crime stats (See Dallas for example...we don't even report thefts/shoplifting <$50), I have even less faith in an aggregate crime figure than I do in Elvis's continued existance on Neptune.
Beats me. There's no longer any (or as much) social stigma having kids out-of-wedlock.
So I guess we're just free to believe whatever we want.
Kind of like religion tbh.
That isn't what the data shows. It is leveling off.
Free condoms for everyone.
Pretty much. The next abortion protest I see, I am going to solicit donations for a children's charity that benefits abused children. See if they put their money where their mouth is.
So you think that having such a stigma would prevent such things.
How do we get this stigma back?
What are the costs to that stigma, and getting the stigma back?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
