Someone please explain children out of wedlock and single parent homes...

[Lostlover]

Here's the reason your posts have been removed. You have repeatedly and purposefully edited this important sentence out of the OP's post.



If you quote his post in it's entirety and highlight what you want to emphasize, that's fair. But that isn't what you are doing. He claims his issue is with the teacher's aides, not the kids. I can see where that may be the case if you consider his post in it's entirety. It is your postings that create a distorted image. If the purse fight continues on, this thread will go the way of the dinosaur.

Don't worry. I have it. This is as easy as cake shooting down hurt feelings.

I hate when people post pictures to make a point, but this is so fitting.

 

[Lostlover]

Great article from Slate.com, a very, very liberal online news site commonly cited in JUB's CE&P. Forget Juno. Out-of-wedlock births are a national catastrophe.

​

^^^ Slate Magazine's picture is too appropriate to not post. The next picture should be her dropping the child off at school and her not answering the phone when the school calls to talk about the child's behavior.

Great excerpt. Why buy the cow, when you get the milk for free?

Among the most poignant letters I get are those from young women wondering whether they will ever convince the father of their children finally to marry them. "My boyfriend and I have a 4-year-old son. We've broken up but realized that we truly are meant for one another. My father was diagnosed with stage four cancer last year, and I've made it known to my boyfriend how important it is for me to have my father with me when I get married. When I bring up marriage to my boyfriend his reply is we will get married, I promise, but he has not asked me."

And to avoid the trauma of divorce, those with less education began forgoing marriage altogether. Better-educated women, who once upon a time were at a disadvantage in finding a mate, "are now more likely to marry than their non-college peers," according to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. It turns out that outside Hollywood, there aren't too many Murphy Browns—successful, educated women who choose to have children alone. The Murphy Browns actually get married: Only 4 percent of college graduates have children out of wedlock.

One poster's sister, unfortunately, betrayed her college education. I like how in the article, they say unwed mothers reference divorce as to why they don't get married. That's like saying, "I'm not going to get a driver's license, because I might get into an accident." No one ever says that, because it's simply not true. Why couldn't the respondents just be honest and say, "shit happens"? One poster has already used that excuse in this thread.


And from The Heritage Foundation, a libertarian think tank that I interned with. "Out of Wedlock Birthrate Out of Control" (Damn, they don't mince their words, do they?)

Excerpt"

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report Wednesday on preliminary data for 2007 birth rates in the United States. Among those statistics, a new historic high — 39.7 percent of babies born in America are to unmarried women. Even worse, 71.6 percent of out-of-wedlock births are to African American women.

This should be alarming to read considering the negative societal implications for children born and raised in single parent households. It is well documented that compared with children born to married couples, those born outside of marriage score lower on tests, have increased chances for committing a crime, have higher chances of living in poverty, experience more emotional and behavioral problems, are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and have higher chances of becoming pregnant as teens.

"Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically Reduce Poverty":

Finally, the most liberal ex-Senator in the country and now President of the United States Barack Obama, has spoken out against unwed mothers:

Children living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners…. In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.

So, both sides of the political aisle recognize it is problem. Why won't they try to do something about it? Unfortunately, making it illegal would be a nail in the coffin for many politicians' careers.

I read other studies that report that unwed mothers are less likely to report domestic abuse. According to The College of New Jersey, 78% of inmates in our prisons were born of wedlock. So if you've ever been victimized, there's a good chance you can thank an unwed mother and sperm donor father. (Apparently, some here think the inmate statistic is just a coincidence. I guess I can put the data into MS Xcel and get a correlation coefficient to show them that there's a strong linkage between crime and children born out of wedlock. )

I alsoread an article that reports that blacks and white born to married parents have the same crime rates as adults. I found this on Ebsco Host and unfortunately I can't post this since my university paid for access to this database. But, this news shouldn't be too shocking.

 

[Musik2400]

While that's all well and good, aside from the fact that you did provide statistics, and more specifically provided the statistic on inmates, the statistics simply address the high rate of out-of wedlock births. They all mention more statistics (score lower on tests, have increased chances for committing a crime, have higher chances of living in poverty, experience more emotional and behavioral problems, are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and have higher chances of becoming pregnant as teens. ) yet not a single one seems to provide the statistical data for this.

As far as the statistics on the inmates:
78 % had a fatherless household (note it does not mention why it is fatherless, and this does not equate to "Born out of wedlock" They could very easily be inmates themselves, which in and of itself increases the chances of a child becoming an inmate http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/rshees...s_our_environment_have_on_criminal_behaviour? --> Also shows there are many more factors (even in family dynamics) that contribute more adequately to likelihood of a life of crime that being born out of wedlock

ANYWAY
78% of 2 million prisoners= 1, 560, 000 inmates
15% of adult population without fathers (note: not "out of wedlock")
(Adult Population= 223,223,023.974 according to this)
15% of 223,223,024= 33,483,453.6
33,483,454 is the number of adults who grew up without fathers.
That means 31,923,454 adults who grew up without fathers are NOT in prison.
That means 95.34% of the fatherless population is not in prison. In psychology we discussed how in many statistical studies, there is this magic little number. If you can reach that number, you can argue that a variable inarguably CAUSES an outcome (this is the number they aim for in psychological studies to prove a variable as a cause for behaviour.)
That number just HAPPENS to be 95%. So according to the systems psychologists use.. I can say that having no father.. CAUSES you to NOT become an inmate.

Statistics are fun. They're even more fun when they're not just a percentage, and actually put into context. Though the majority of statistics are a lot less poignant if put into context



PS: Heritage Foundation: Can you say biased much? They are bible-thumping, anti-gay nut jobs. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Co...=The+Danger+in+Appeasing+Gay+Rights+Activists

 

[Lostlover]

Did anybody see Judge Judy tonight? She told a young unwed mother, "your irresponsibility is now your mom's responsibility." What does Judge Judy know about raising children? I don't know... 30 years in family court as an attorney and judge. 5 children - two are medical doctors and three are attorneys.

Does anyone want to guess whether or not she had her children out of wedlock? Or her views on this issue?

I guess she's elitist now.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Judge Judy is guess know LAW is ASS

ans countrys she in full da ASSES

maybe Judys world ova

figure how stop da asses

repeat same shit

ans give LAW new outfit

until then

words just mean shit

 

[LilBit]

^Exactly. :~D

 

[Esquire0399]

Did anybody see Judge Judy tonight? She told a young unwed mother, "your irresponsibility is now your mom's responsibility." What does Judge Judy know about raising children? I don't know... 30 years in family court as an attorney and judge. 5 children - two are medical doctors and three are attorneys.

Does anyone want to guess whether or not she had her children out of wedlock? Or her views on this issue?

I guess she's elitist now.

Yes, because if Judge Judy says it there's nothing left to discuss right? Because she's never been wrong right? Because there aren't accomplished family court judges born to unwed parents right? Because there are no medical doctors or attorneys born to unwed parents right? Because there aren't millions and millions of incredible and accomplished people raised by single parents right? You win Lostlover. I bow at your feet in recognition of this astounding victory.









Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face on that one. Maybe next time.

 

[Musik2400]

Did anybody see Judge Judy tonight? She told a young unwed mother, "your irresponsibility is now your mom's responsibility." What does Judge Judy know about raising children? I don't know... 30 years in family court as an attorney and judge. 5 children - two are medical doctors and three are attorneys.

Does anyone want to guess whether or not she had her children out of wedlock? Or her views on this issue?

I guess she's elitist now.

No, because she doesn't claim that "The worst kids are born out of wedlock"
she simply states a fact that the woman's mother now has the responsibility of that child. She doesn't say that chid is doomed to a live of stupidity, crime, etc. She doesn't even actuallly ADDRESS the issue your arguing for. She simply states that the mother now has to take care of the newborn granddaughter. This is False Attribution.

All you have relied on this entire thread is argue an Appeal to Probability, and Proof by Example.

You have committed the Base Rate fallacy numerous times (most recently your argument about prison inmates), and now here you have used False Attribution. Doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me. But what do I know right?

 

[Piquechampion]

Not getting married is fine, having sex is fine but being so stupid as not to use birth control when you can not afford to raise a child is selfish.

Anyoen who thinks I am a jack ass can F off

Co-sign

I think the logic of the OP is flawed. Whether the parents are married or not isn't really important. Just the same as with same sex parents, or single people who adopt. They do it because they are prepared and want a child.

But for the dumb fuckers (aka breeders) to just fuck around and pop children left and right like there is no tomorrow.... well that my friends is called being selfish.

2c.

 

[Lostlover]

So today, we had a new student. Real nice other than his bipolar moments, where he needs to tell me how much of a bad ass he is. When I asked him why he was booted from another school, he replied that he beat an assistant principal up, something I confirmed to be true with my aide in the room.

Then he told me that his school just opened a daycare for the children of teenagers at the school. A daycare. What the hell is happening to this country?

And I said, out loud of course, "someone dropped the ball at home." My aide and the behavior specialist rolled their eyes. They were all used to this bull crap. And the aide, a black Muslim, went on this tangent about how out of wedlock children are destroying public schools and the black community. And even more assuring was his response when I asked him if his family would talk to a sister of his if she was opening up her legs to men without any type of commitment. And his reaction was affirmative. They'd have a pow wow if he had a trashy sister.

This is where I told him about a poster here that would let his sister just pop out children out of wedlock so that he wouldn't pain her. Like I told the poster, I told my aide. I bet you if your sister had lipstick on her teeth you'd tell her but telling her that having kids out of wedlock is destructive is in bad taste. WTF?

Right is always right. Right doesnt change with the times.

If I ever have kids, it's private schools. I'm sure this type of crap isn't happening there as much.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Jeebers, why is this still going on?

-d-

 

[Lostlover]

Yes, because if Judge Judy says it there's nothing left to discuss right? Because she's never been wrong right? Because there aren't accomplished family court judges born to unwed parents right? Because there are no medical doctors or attorneys born to unwed parents right? Because there aren't millions and millions of incredible and accomplished people raised by single parents right? You win Lostlover. I bow at your feet in recognition of this astounding victory.









Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face on that one. Maybe next time.

40 plus years in the family court system and raising very successful children mean nothing when you have a wayward agenda and want to discredit everyone that doesn't agree with you.

You really shouldn't be laughing. You're on the wrong side here and it shouldn't be any more obvious.

Would you mind commenting on the reports I posted published by both liberal and conservative groups about the destructive nature of out of wedlock births in this country? It must take a really egregious act for a Libertarian to suggest how people lives their lives since personal freedom is at the core of their philosophy. I think with out of wedlock children, the libertarians were right to break with their official policy here. It's destroying America.

 

[fetaby]

You're on the wrong side here...

There is no right and wrong... There simply is...

Humanity moves in tides and only a fool stands in its way...

 

[Musik2400]

I love how you ignore the fact that you've been discredited on numerous occasions, yet still arguing.

You had let this thread die for a while, and chose not to reply. Sadly, as it was short lived, it was your smartest idea in this thread.

The more you reply, the more you show how truly sheltered you are, and how truly skewed your views are.

Right doesnt change with the times.

Are you serious with this? One of the biggest influencing factors on "Right" (also known as values/morals/creeds) is the time, and more specifically society.

Ancient Greece: Homosexual sex was right. Many people engaged in it, and no one thought it disgusting and disturbing. Even pedophilia was acceptable if it followed the right sequence of events.
80 years ago: Homosexual sex is considered wrong. The majority sees it as disgusting and un-natural. Pedophilia is seen as wrong.
Today: Homosexual sex is still taboo in some circles, and "right" in others. Pedophilia is still wrong.

Hmm.. Right doesn't change? If you can't quite understand what I'm driving at, take a look at Aristotle's Nichomachean(sp) Ethical System, and a term he refers to as Eudaemonia. It explains that what is right is decided on by society. What is right is what is habitual for the masses, what is the "virtuous mean" or average in society.

Take women for example. Once upon a time it was "right" for them to be property of their husbands. It was "wrong" for them to show so much as their ankle.

Seriously if its you whose shaping young minds I fear for the future. try opening your eyes, cuz so far you've just managed to make yourself look like a jackass. Whether this be true or not who knows, but thats sure the portrait you've painted here.

 

[Lostlover]

I love how you ignore the fact that you've been discredited on numerous occasions, yet still arguing.

You had let this thread die for a while, and chose not to reply. Sadly, as it was short lived, it was your smartest idea in this thread.

The more you reply, the more you show how truly sheltered you are, and how truly skewed your views are.

Right doesnt change with the times.

Are you serious with this? One of the biggest influencing factors on "Right" (also known as values/morals/creeds) is the time, and more specifically society.

Ancient Greece: Homosexual sex was right. Many people engaged in it, and no one thought it disgusting and disturbing. Even pedophilia was acceptable if it followed the right sequence of events.
80 years ago: Homosexual sex is considered wrong. The majority sees it as disgusting and un-natural. Pedophilia is seen as wrong.
Today: Homosexual sex is still taboo in some circles, and "right" in others. Pedophilia is still wrong.

Hmm.. Right doesn't change? If you can't quite understand what I'm driving at, take a look at Aristotle's Nichomachean(sp) Ethical System, and a term he refers to as Eudaemonia. It explains that what is right is decided on by society. What is right is what is habitual for the masses, what is the "virtuous mean" or average in society.

Take women for example. Once upon a time it was "right" for them to be property of their husbands. It was "wrong" for them to show so much as their ankle.

Seriously if its you whose shaping young minds I fear for the future. try opening your eyes, cuz so far you've just managed to make yourself look like a jackass. Whether this be true or not who knows, but thats sure the portrait you've painted here.

No I didn't let this thread die. You wanted it to die.

Now you've talked about me. Now can you PLEASE elaborate on why adults experiment with children even before birth by having them out wedlock. I'm sheltered for noticing an abominable trend. Now what about the people ruining lives by playing house?

It must be a full moon. You have posters defending and HIV positive porn star doing bareback porn. And here you have posters give careless parents a blank check as they ruin lives by having children out of wedlock.

I've been on JUB almost five years and this has been one of the wackiest months.

 

[Musik2400]

Wow. I'm just not even sure anymore if you're actually serious about this?

When the thread died, I actually was somewhat dissapointed you ignored my replies and chose not to respond. I was hoping that maybe you might go as far as to suppport your point with actual arguments, instead of the crap you've been relying on so far.

As far as saying you didn't let it die... It was 5 days before another post was made after mine about argument fallacies. It was 10 days before you replied. The last time I made a point of checking, it was on the third page of hot topics. I'd say that's pretty dead.

Adult's experementing with kids. Really? This is the route you wanna go with this. All righty then. Let's look at all your studies here, even though everything you quoted was devoid of actual statistical information. At least any that support your argument. Every solid statistic you quoted happens to be about who does and doesn't parent out of wedlock children. Not a single hard stat about the effects it has on children. And I wonder why that is? Because in order to get these stats, you would need to experiment on human children. Psychologists can monitor animals to see the effects of separation on a child. Psychologists cannot however, study the value of marriage in respect to a child's apptitude/performance/success unless they experimented with human children, as humans are the only species which observes the sanction of marriage.

As for the rest of your post, this is what makes me wonder if your serious about your argument, or if you are indeed nothing more than a troll. Making the outrageous comparison (however indirect it may be) between the willful, borderline intentional spread of HIV, and women having children out of wedlock? It seems like your only goal is to intentionally stir the pot, and offend people.

 

[Lostlover]

^^^A load of crap. I can think of at least two important statistics in those links I posted. Today, 40% of children are born out of wedlock and 79% of inmates were raised or born to single mothers.

Coincidence? Please tell me it's a coincidence. That's where I think you're going.

Just of curiousity, do you believe 40% of Fortune 500 CEOs were born out of wedlock? That's what the level is for the general public. And some pot smokers in this thread think that the circumstances of your birth have no bearing on your life.

So if you've been victimized, you can thank a single mother.

 

[Lostlover]

Right doesnt change with the times.

Seriously if its you whose shaping young minds I fear for the future. try opening your eyes, cuz so far you've just managed to make yourself look like a jackass. Whether this be true or not who knows, but thats sure the portrait you've painted here.

Oh yeah. Another statistic. Only one in 20 female college graduates have children out of wedlock. Why are single mother college graduates few and far between while non-educated mothers have a bigger share of children born out of wedlock.

Get the popcorn out folks. The answer to this one is going to be HILARIOUS. (If he answers.)

 

[Musik2400]

Do you even read my posts? Lemme go back and show you something, k?

Every solid statistic you quoted happens to be about who does and doesn't parent out of wedlock children. Not a single hard stat about the effects it has on children.

40% of children are born out of wedlock: This has nothing to do with out of wedlock kids being bad.

78% of prison inmates came from fattherless homes. But like I said you need to take into consideration the base rate, as the adult population in America today (ie. the ones who would be inmates) is only 15% fatherless, and 95% of fatherless adults are not in jail.

Neither of these is important, because neither of these supports your argument that children born out of wedlock are the worst kind. If you took the time to read my posts you'd see I've already explained that. It doesn't matter wether they're coincidence or not, and such a conclusion can't even be drawn because the demographic of one (the us population= 40% out of wedlock kids) does not share the same frequency of out of wedlock births (or single parent homes) as the other (adult population=15% fatherless). The adult prison inmates are in no wa affected by the 40% out of wedlock births, as that is children today, not inmates.
1 in 20 college graduates. Again nothing to do with the effect on children, just the occurence of births. And I think maybe you need to think a little more carefully befoore arguing.

Why are single mother college graduates few and far between while non-educated mothers have a bigger share of children born out of wedlock.

I'll admit to not knowing this answer. But it also has nothing to do with this argument. If I had to guess it would be because most single mothers, and born out of wedlock births happen at a younger age. Most single mothers don't have the resources to graduate from college. Most women who go to college are likely career minded as well and get that done first. But again the answer doesn't matter because this is another example of a stat that talks about Who has kids out of wedlock, not what it does to the children.

But here's something for you to answer. How do you feel about the fact that college graduates have out of wedlock births at the same rate that adults who grew up without a father end up in jail?

Seriously if you're gonna argue this, how bout you actually argue it instead of throwing out a whole bunch of unrelated facts and figures, sprinkled with purposely offensive language. If you're "on the right side" here it should be no problem. Enlighten me.

 

[Lostlover]

Just be honest and say my comments are hitting close to home. That's what it seems like. It's a bit of a stretch to act clueless as to why educated women don't have children out of wedlock. Not even a guess.

I can't think of a better statistic to back what I said when I wrote that the worst kids in my school were born out of wedlock/are raised by a single mother. The prison population is FULL of people raised just like them. I can't find a stronger statistic to back what I said.

I think Mason Wyler, aka the HIV positive bareback porn star, needs some more defenders in the Hot Guys forum. You seem to be a big defender of terrible and destructive behavior.

Do you even read my posts? Lemme go back and show you something, k?



40% of children are born out of wedlock: This has nothing to do with out of wedlock kids being bad.

78% of prison inmates came from fattherless homes. But like I said you need to take into consideration the base rate, as the adult population in America today (ie. the ones who would be inmates) is only 15% fatherless, and 95% of fatherless adults are not in jail.

Neither of these is important, because neither of these supports your argument that children born out of wedlock are the worst kind. If you took the time to read my posts you'd see I've already explained that. It doesn't matter wether they're coincidence or not, and such a conclusion can't even be drawn because the demographic of one (the us population= 40% out of wedlock kids) does not share the same frequency of out of wedlock births (or single parent homes) as the other (adult population=15% fatherless). The adult prison inmates are in no wa affected by the 40% out of wedlock births, as that is children today, not inmates.
1 in 20 college graduates. Again nothing to do with the effect on children, just the occurence of births. And I think maybe you need to think a little more carefully befoore arguing.



I'll admit to not knowing this answer. But it also has nothing to do with this argument. If I had to guess it would be because most single mothers, and born out of wedlock births happen at a younger age. Most single mothers don't have the resources to graduate from college. Most women who go to college are likely career minded as well and get that done first. But again the answer doesn't matter because this is another example of a stat that talks about Who has kids out of wedlock, not what it does to the children.

But here's something for you to answer. How do you feel about the fact that college graduates have out of wedlock births at the same rate that adults who grew up without a father end up in jail?

Seriously if you're gonna argue this, how bout you actually argue it instead of throwing out a whole bunch of unrelated facts and figures, sprinkled with purposely offensive language. If you're "on the right side" here it should be no problem. Enlighten me.