All of it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
In which observation do you express doubt ?
It all starts with the family John. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … vorce.html . With the loss of the family nucleus to build morality and core values, the rest of the stats follow suit, naturally.JohnG@lt wrote:
All of it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
In which observation do you express doubt ?
My parents divorced when I was 8. I'm not living on welfare. In fact, I know quite a lot of people with divorced parents who aren't living on welfare. So try again.lowing wrote:
It all starts with the family John. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … vorce.html . With the loss of the family nucleus to build morality and core values, the rest of the stats follow suit, naturally.JohnG@lt wrote:
All of it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
In which observation do you express doubt ?
That is of course unless you believe the media and technology, IE the boob tube and iphones provide a more stable base for passing on moral judgement and sound character than parents at the dinner table.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-02-04 10:48:58)
I'm sorry I didn't realize you represented the whole... I also come from divorced parents, but can't you see how the failure of the family CAN and does lead to other issues. I see it because my wife is a teacher, and I can tell you that parenting is getting worse. They don't have time or want time to raise their kids, and the kids, as well as the teachers, suffer for it. School isn't a place of learning, it is "free" babysitting. You should see the parents come unglued when there is a snow day, and they are actually FORCED to take care of their own kids.JohnG@lt wrote:
My parents divorced when I was 8. I'm not living on welfare. In fact, I know quite a lot of people with divorced parents who aren't living on welfare. So try again.lowing wrote:
It all starts with the family John. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … vorce.html . With the loss of the family nucleus to build morality and core values, the rest of the stats follow suit, naturally.JohnG@lt wrote:
All of it.
That is of course unless you believe the media and technology, IE the boob tube and iphones provide a more stable base for passing on moral judgement and sound character than parents at the dinner table.
are you arguing that in order to hold moral value, you must not be poor? really?JohnG@lt wrote:
Let's use your own graphs:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ivorce.jpg
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ds/pov.gif
Shit...
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-04 11:03:31)
No, but most crime is caused by a lack of money, not a lack of morals. You're trying to make the prayer in school argument. Sorry. Christians commit theft and murder and rape too.lowing wrote:
are you arguing that in order to hold moral value, you must not be poor? really?JohnG@lt wrote:
Let's use your own graphs:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ivorce.jpg
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ds/pov.gif
Shit...
you do realize that we are talking about morals and values and not money.............right?
Well gee, I wonder if there is any connection between a lack of money, and a lack of good parenting, a lack of ambition, a lack of motivation, a lack of guidance, a lack of a sound character base to form good decisions, a lack of............JohnG@lt wrote:
No, but most crime is caused by a lack of money, not a lack of morals. You're trying to make the prayer in school argument. Sorry. Christians commit theft and murder and rape too.lowing wrote:
are you arguing that in order to hold moral value, you must not be poor? really?JohnG@lt wrote:
Let's use your own graphs:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ivorce.jpg
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ds/pov.gif
Shit...
you do realize that we are talking about morals and values and not money.............right?
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-04 11:23:04)
And it's never been any different from today, sorry.lowing wrote:
Well gee, I wonder if there is any connection between a lack of money, and a lack of good parenting, a lack of ambition, a lack of motivation, a lack of guidance, a lack of a sound character base to form good decisions, a lack of............JohnG@lt wrote:
No, but most crime is caused by a lack of money, not a lack of morals. You're trying to make the prayer in school argument. Sorry. Christians commit theft and murder and rape too.lowing wrote:
are you arguing that in order to hold moral value, you must not be poor? really?
you do realize that we are talking about morals and values and not money.............right?
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-02-04 11:21:42)
uhhhhh well if we agree that the family nucleus is broken down to a far greater extent from 60 years ago, how can we not agree that the negative affects from that would not also increase?JohnG@lt wrote:
And it's never been any different from today, sorry.lowing wrote:
Well gee, I wonder if there is any connection between a lack of money, and a lack of good parenting, a lack of ambition, a lack of motivation, a lack of guidance, a lack of a sound character base to form good decisions, a lack of............JohnG@lt wrote:
No, but most crime is caused by a lack of money, not a lack of morals. You're trying to make the prayer in school argument. Sorry. Christians commit theft and murder and rape too.
Teachers have been saying "The kids get worse every year" since the dawn of education systems.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-04 11:29:29)
Because you haven't proven that the negative effects are all that great? Would you rather wives stay with abusive husbands that beat their kids? Would you rather kids grow up in a home where the parents don't love each other? Because by harping on divorce rates that's exactly what you're asking for. The end result is that wives get shamed by the stigma of divorce into staying with a bad match. People generally get divorced for very solid reasons. It's not a flip decision.lowing wrote:
uhhhhh well if we agree that the family nucleus is broken down to a far greater extent from 60 years ago, how can we not agree that the negative affects from that would not also increase?JohnG@lt wrote:
And it's never been any different from today, sorry.lowing wrote:
Well gee, I wonder if there is any connection between a lack of money, and a lack of good parenting, a lack of ambition, a lack of motivation, a lack of guidance, a lack of a sound character base to form good decisions, a lack of............
Teachers have been saying "The kids get worse every year" since the dawn of education systems.
You can't be serious. Teachers have been saying it because they themselves have changed over time. They're burnt out. They hate the kids more and more every year. That reflects in their attitude. Instead of looking inward and assessing their desire to continue teaching, they blame it on the kids. The kids haven't changed, they have.lowing wrote:
and if teachers have been saying that since the dawn of the education system. Then it is also safe to assume that it is, therefore it is the worse to date. Which would be worse than 1950's. My point stands'
was already on it, now take these stats and........JohnG@lt wrote:
Because you haven't proven that the negative effects are all that great? Would you rather wives stay with abusive husbands that beat their kids? Would you rather kids grow up in a home where the parents don't love each other? Because by harping on divorce rates that's exactly what you're asking for. The end result is that wives get shamed by the stigma of divorce into staying with a bad match. People generally get divorced for very solid reasons. It's not a flip decision.lowing wrote:
uhhhhh well if we agree that the family nucleus is broken down to a far greater extent from 60 years ago, how can we not agree that the negative affects from that would not also increase?JohnG@lt wrote:
And it's never been any different from today, sorry.
Teachers have been saying "The kids get worse every year" since the dawn of education systems.
So here you go lowing, I'll help you with your argument. Find me a set of statistics:
Show me the incarceration and future income rate of children born into 'broken homes' vs those in 'stable homes'. Make sure the income for the broken homes and stable homes are as close to each other as possible.
I see nothing related to income there.lowing wrote:
was already on it, now take these stats and........JohnG@lt wrote:
Because you haven't proven that the negative effects are all that great? Would you rather wives stay with abusive husbands that beat their kids? Would you rather kids grow up in a home where the parents don't love each other? Because by harping on divorce rates that's exactly what you're asking for. The end result is that wives get shamed by the stigma of divorce into staying with a bad match. People generally get divorced for very solid reasons. It's not a flip decision.lowing wrote:
uhhhhh well if we agree that the family nucleus is broken down to a far greater extent from 60 years ago, how can we not agree that the negative affects from that would not also increase?
So here you go lowing, I'll help you with your argument. Find me a set of statistics:
Show me the incarceration and future income rate of children born into 'broken homes' vs those in 'stable homes'. Make sure the income for the broken homes and stable homes are as close to each other as possible.
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/fact … _kids.html
thats because we are not talking about wealth John rather the moral declination of our country. I offered 1 good reason for it, you asked for proof, you got it, now whether you like it or not is of little concern to me.JohnG@lt wrote:
I see nothing related to income there.lowing wrote:
was already on it, now take these stats and........JohnG@lt wrote:
Because you haven't proven that the negative effects are all that great? Would you rather wives stay with abusive husbands that beat their kids? Would you rather kids grow up in a home where the parents don't love each other? Because by harping on divorce rates that's exactly what you're asking for. The end result is that wives get shamed by the stigma of divorce into staying with a bad match. People generally get divorced for very solid reasons. It's not a flip decision.
So here you go lowing, I'll help you with your argument. Find me a set of statistics:
Show me the incarceration and future income rate of children born into 'broken homes' vs those in 'stable homes'. Make sure the income for the broken homes and stable homes are as close to each other as possible.
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/fact … _kids.html
No, I asked for specific proof. You handed me a link with a bunch of quotes. "Kids from broken homes are more likely to drink and have sex" well no shit. They're the same as any other kids of their income level.lowing wrote:
thats because we are not talking about wealth John rather the moral declination of our country. I offered 1 good reason for it, you asked for proof, you got it, now whether you like it or not is of little concern to me.JohnG@lt wrote:
I see nothing related to income there.lowing wrote:
was already on it, now take these stats and........
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/fact … _kids.html
sorry, it gave stats on several issues, like crime then it sourced the stats it quoted. Again I don't give a shit if you like it or not, you got exactly what you asked for. The moral declination of our country is if only party attributed to the break up of the family.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I asked for specific proof. You handed me a link with a bunch of quotes. "Kids from broken homes are more likely to drink and have sex" well no shit. They're the same as any other kids of their income level.lowing wrote:
thats because we are not talking about wealth John rather the moral declination of our country. I offered 1 good reason for it, you asked for proof, you got it, now whether you like it or not is of little concern to me.JohnG@lt wrote:
I see nothing related to income there.
How is our country morally in decline? 99% of the time that phrase is used it is simply tears being shed over the secularization of this country. I've got news for you, you don't need to read the bible to have morals.lowing wrote:
sorry, it gave stats on several issues, like crime then it sourced the stats it quoted. Again I don't give a shit if you like it or not, you got exactly what you asked for. The moral declination of our country is if only party attributed to the break up of the family.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I asked for specific proof. You handed me a link with a bunch of quotes. "Kids from broken homes are more likely to drink and have sex" well no shit. They're the same as any other kids of their income level.lowing wrote:
thats because we are not talking about wealth John rather the moral declination of our country. I offered 1 good reason for it, you asked for proof, you got it, now whether you like it or not is of little concern to me.
Didn't say a word about religion or the bible. I talked about a stable family, and how the lack of it can aid in an individuals moral downfall, then I showed you stats ( which you asked for) to back up my opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is our country morally in decline? 99% of the time that phrase is used it is simply tears being shed over the secularization of this country. I've got news for you, you don't need to read the bible to have morals.lowing wrote:
sorry, it gave stats on several issues, like crime then it sourced the stats it quoted. Again I don't give a shit if you like it or not, you got exactly what you asked for. The moral declination of our country is if only party attributed to the break up of the family.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I asked for specific proof. You handed me a link with a bunch of quotes. "Kids from broken homes are more likely to drink and have sex" well no shit. They're the same as any other kids of their income level.
You're regurgitating the social conservative party line which is built on Christianity. The two are inseparable, sorry.lowing wrote:
Didn't say a word about religion or the bible. I talked about a stable family, and how the lack of it can aid in an individuals moral downfall, then I showed you stats ( which you asked for) to back up my opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is our country morally in decline? 99% of the time that phrase is used it is simply tears being shed over the secularization of this country. I've got news for you, you don't need to read the bible to have morals.lowing wrote:
sorry, it gave stats on several issues, like crime then it sourced the stats it quoted. Again I don't give a shit if you like it or not, you got exactly what you asked for. The moral declination of our country is if only party attributed to the break up of the family.
Aussie is right. The Fed is re-inflating the economy. Bernanke is blowing wall streeters so hard that he must have blisters on his lips. He's on his knees hoping for a bukkake that's not coming. If you stand back and look at what the Fed is doing... the best case scenerio is stagflation.JohnG@lt wrote:
The debt is absolutely an issue but it's not nearly as debilitating (at this point) as what some other countries have racked up on a per capita basis.AussieReaper wrote:
Doesn't mean shit while your still amassing debt.JohnG@lt wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the recession is essentially over and we've had growth for the past six months. The economy had a hiccup, it did not fall off a cliff. It's normal.
look you asked for the very stats I provided. Can't help it if you refuse to acknowledge them, nor do I care.JohnG@lt wrote:
You're regurgitating the social conservative party line which is built on Christianity. The two are inseparable, sorry.lowing wrote:
Didn't say a word about religion or the bible. I talked about a stable family, and how the lack of it can aid in an individuals moral downfall, then I showed you stats ( which you asked for) to back up my opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is our country morally in decline? 99% of the time that phrase is used it is simply tears being shed over the secularization of this country. I've got news for you, you don't need to read the bible to have morals.
JohnG@lt wrote:
So here you go lowing, I'll help you with your argument. Find me a set of statistics:
Show me the incarceration and future income rate of children born into 'broken homes' vs those in 'stable homes'. Make sure the income for the broken homes and stable homes are as close to each other as possible.
The Impact on our Children
Inter-spousal violence perpetrated by men is only a small aspect of family violence. False abuse allegations are only a small tile in the mosaic of vilifying the men in our society. They serve well in successful attempts to remove fathers from the lives of our children. Here are some statistics resulting from that which show more of the whole picture.
79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award.
46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support.
26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.
20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full time.
10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full time.
7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly.
24.5% of single custodial fathers work more that 44 hours weekly.
46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance.
20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance.
[Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy]
40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.
["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]
50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.
["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]
90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
[U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
[Center for Disease Control]
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
[U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
[Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]
Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers.
[US News and World Report, February 27, 1995, p.39]
There are:
11,268,000 total custodial mothers
2,907,000 total custodial fathers
[Current Populations Reports, US Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991]
What does this mean? Children from fatherless homes are:
4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,
6.6 times to become teenaged mothers (if they are girls, of course),
24.3 times more likely to run away,
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions,
10.8 times more likely to commit rape,
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school,
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.
(The calculation of the relative risks shown in the preceding list is based on 27% of children being in the care of single mothers.)
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-02-04 14:41:13)
prove it.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, but most crime is caused by a lack of money, .lowing wrote:
are you arguing that in order to hold moral value, you must not be poor? really?JohnG@lt wrote:
Let's use your own graphs:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ivorce.jpg
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … ds/pov.gif
Shit...
you do realize that we are talking about morals and values and not money.............right?
