Prickly Pete Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Her idiocy has me considering the possibility that people like her and Al Sharpton are promoted and given the spotlight, to undermine Black political activism. I immediately thought "I've worked with 4 or 5 black women stuck in middle-management, that would be better suited than this woman".
Chef Jim Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 The world will be a better place when people like you can't vote) This is a pretty stupid thing to say but that's par for your course.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) The world will be a better place when people like you can't vote. (Jean her mother is a woman.) I know Jean is a woman, I was making a joke. As to my primary statement, it's borne our with data. The single factor that is most closely corolated with intergenerational poverty is the non-nuclear family. But by all means, let's predend that isn't true. Let's demonize people who point it out, and who believe strongly in the moral structures supported by the data. Let's pretend all family structures are equal in results, to protect feelings. Idiot. Edited October 21, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 This is a pretty stupid thing to say but that's par for your course. He thinks a family with two dads is one of the worst possible starting places for a child. Do you agree? I know Jean is a woman, I was making a joke. As to my primary statement, it's borne our with data. The single factor that is most closely corolated with intergenerational poverty is the non-nuclear family. But by all means, let's predend that isn't true. Let's demonize people who point it out, and who believe strongly in the moral structures supported by the data. Let's pretend all family structures are equal in results, to protect feelings. Idiot. I have been around 8 same sex parent families, and in the extended sphere of many more. Some have problems. Some don't. Same as anyone. But to blanket judge based on someone's sexual preference is morally reprehensible. Black people end up in jail at a higher rate than others in the US. Statistics bear that out too. Do you judge a single black person based on that data? Because that's what you suggest.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) He thinks a family with two dads is one of the worst possible starting places for a child. Do you agree? I have been around 8 same sex parent families, and in the extended sphere of many more. Some have problems. Some don't. Same as anyone. But to blanket judge based on someone's sexual preference is morally reprehensible. Black people end up in jail at a higher rate than others in the US. Statistics bear that out too. Do you judge a single black person based on that data? Because that's what you suggest. I suggest no such thing. That's you projecting. I judge people for their choices, which they are responsible for (creating a non-nuclear family is a choice). The fact that you would equate that with race, which individuals do not choose, is reprehensible. The fact that non-nuclear families consistently lead to worse results statistically does not magically disappear just because of your pearl clutching. It's a statistical reality that you cannot escape. Equality under the law does not magically confer equal results, as some choices will always lead to worse outcomes than others. Further, it should not come as a surprise to you that what is most biologically normal statistically leads to the best results. Edited October 21, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 I judge people for their choices, which they are responsible for (creating a non-nuclear family is a choice). The fact that you would equate that with race, which individuals do not choose, is reprehensible. Remember that day you chose to be heterosexual? And even if was a choice, BFD. Sad that people like you exist, but thankfully you're a dying breed.
/dev/null Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Sad that people like you exist, but thankfully you're a dying breed. Tolerance and Diversity are great as long they think like they're supposed to, amirite?
dickleyjones Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 I suggest no such thing. That's you projecting. I judge people for their choices, which they are responsible for (creating a non-nuclear family is a choice). The fact that you would equate that with race, which individuals do not choose, is reprehensible. The fact that non-nuclear families consistently lead to worse results statistically does not magically disappear just because of your pearl clutching. It's a statistical reality that you cannot escape. Equality under the law does not magically confer equal results, as some choices will always lead to worse outcomes than others. Further, it should not come as a surprise to you that what is most biologically normal statistically leads to the best results. It's not always a choice. One parent can die, for example. And even if your correlation statistics are 100% correct, which is doubtful, perhaps we should be looking at the reasons why that is and address it constructively instead of just saying "welp, the only answer is less non-nuclear families." You know, actually help out that kid who had a parent pass away so he/she can be a part of the "best results".
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Tolerance and Diversity are great as long they think like they're supposed to, amirite? Everyone has a right to be stupid. But don't mix that with my right to hate what he stands for and call him out on it.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) Remember that day you chose to be heterosexual? And even if was a choice, BFD. Sad that people like you exist, but thankfully you're a dying breed. Reading comprehension is failing you. I never said homosexuality was a choice. I believe it's some combination of nature-nurture, and that there is a sliding scale on which all people can be found. What I said is that entering into a non-nuclear family arrangement is a choice. I also said that it is a fact that non-nuclear families consistently lead to worse results statistically. And I'll continue to point out that it's a statistical reality that you cannot escape, and that equality under the law, which I unequivocally support, does not magically confer equal results, as some choices will always lead to worse outcomes than others. So what is it that you have an issue with that you believe makes me a bad person? - That fact that non-nuclear families lead to statistically worse outcomes? - The fact that entering into a non-nuclear family is a choice? - The fact that I believe in full equality under the law? - The fact that all choices are not equal, and some lead to worse outcomes than others? - The fact that human evolution has led us to a place where the most biologically normal situation consistently generates the best statistical results? Which is it that you find so reprehensible? It's not always a choice. One parent can die, for example. And even if your correlation statistics are 100% correct, which is doubtful, perhaps we should be looking at the reasons why that is and address it constructively instead of just saying "welp, the only answer is less non-nuclear families." You know, actually help out that kid who had a parent pass away so he/she can be a part of the "best results". A parent in a nuclear household who dies, leaving behind a non-nuclear household is a statistical outlier. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done to replace the parent. Everyone has a right to be stupid. But don't mix that with my right to hate what he stands for and call him out on it. You hate facts, and call me out on it because you'd prefer a reality based on feelings. Smart. /golfclap Edited October 21, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
dickleyjones Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 A parent in a nuclear household who dies, leaving behind a non-nuclear household is a statistical outlier. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done to replace the parent. But what can we do? I think we should do more than just observe the situation and say "too bad...statistically, that kid is screwed." Perhaps the statistics you have referenced can change over time if an effort is made.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) But what can we do? I think we should do more than just observe the situation and say "too bad...statistically, that kid is screwed." Perhaps the statistics you have referenced can change over time if an effort is made. Statistically that kid is screwed relative to the mean outcome of a kid in a nuclear family. You cannot replace the nuclear family in a 1:1 way. Of course there are things that can be done to help create a better outcome to the child: extended family, churches, and other people naturally close to the family in question can rally around them and help to try to fill in the gaps, but nothing can truly replace the role of a interested mother or father in a child's life. And of course there will be children from non-nuclear families who achieve excellent outcomes, and children who come from nuclear families who fail miserably on a moral or economic level, or both. Edited October 21, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 But what can we do? I think we should do more than just observe the situation and say "too bad...statistically, that kid is screwed." Perhaps the statistics you have referenced can change over time if an effort is made. Pointing out a statistical truism is not the same as advocating its outcome. One obvious choice, is if possible to re-establish the nuclear family.
B-Man Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Meanwhile............. WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left. Clinton Still Hasn’t Faced Questions About Pay-to-Play Head On. KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: Hillary and the Book-Burners. She began by arguing that the Supreme Court, and lesser federal courts, should be political partisans who take sides in disputes rather than adjudicate them according to the law. Many politicians — perhaps even most — believe that, or act in a way that suggests they do, but most of them feel at least the need to shamefacedly insist that judges are there to impartially apply the law. Not Mrs. Clinton. The Supreme Court that exists in her mind is the worst version of the highest judicial body, which is to say the American answer to Iran’s Guardian Council. The justices already wander into American-ayatollah territory too often, and it is only shame that constrains them. It is impossible to overstate the damage this is doing to our constitutional order, and to the legitimacy of the federal government itself. What is worse — if something can in fact be worse — is that Mrs. Clinton seeks to unmoor the Supreme Court from the Constitution in order to pursue her own repressive and self-interested political program, namely the censorship of publications, organizations, and institutions that are critical of her.
dickleyjones Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Pointing out a statistical truism is not the same as advocating its outcome. One obvious choice, is if possible to re-establish the nuclear family. I'm not suggesting tytt is advocating the outcome. I'm suggesting that statistics can be insightful and may guide us on how to better address the issue instead of just accepting the stats as immutable. We should be looking at how can we help the children of same sex couples have more success, and change the stats.
4merper4mer Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 I'm not suggesting tytt is advocating the outcome. I'm suggesting that statistics can be insightful and may guide us on how to better address the issue instead of just accepting the stats as immutable. We should be looking at how can we help the children of same sex couples have more success, and change the stats. You'll have to excuse Tasker as he has only been through Stats 101 and 102. He understands linear regression pretty well but won't hit multiple regression until 201.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) Got it, thanks for that carefully crafted Clinton-like "definition of is" defense of your bigotry. Summing up: - Statistically non-nuclear (which in your view I assume is married M-F + children no divorces) families have better adapted children - Homosexuals in relationships, even committed ones, should not raise families because they will statistically less likely to succeed - You support homosexual relationships - you look at children of homosexuals and judge their personality traits as related to the homosexuality of their parents Did I miss anything in your logic? Edited October 21, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin
Gary M Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Got it, thanks for that carefully crafted Clinton-like "definition of is" defense of your bigotry. Summing up: - Statistically non-nuclear (which in your view I assume is married M-F + children no divorces) families have better adapted children - Homosexuals in relationships, even committed ones, should not raise families because they will statistically less likely to succeed - You support homosexual relationships - you look at children of homosexuals and judge their personality traits as related to the homosexuality of their parents Did I miss anything in your logic? Troll much?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Got it, thanks for that carefully crafted Clinton-like "definition of is" defense of your bigotry. To quote Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings" It is not bigoted to point out facts. They will always persist, despite whatever social agenda is being pushed. It is ignorant, counter productive, and harmful to pretend that all outcomes will be the same for all situation, and that there is no optimal situation. Summing up: - Statistically non-nuclear (which in your view I assume is married M-F + children no divorces) families have better adapted children Correct, as well as a higher likelihood of economic mobility. - Homosexuals in relationships, even committed ones, should not raise families because they will statistically less likely to succeed This is either you projecting, or outright lying. I never made any such claim, nor do I believe this. As I've said many times, I strenuously believe in equality under the law, and don't believe that homosexuals should be prevented from adopting, just as I don't believe that single motherhood or divorce should be illegal. The difference is that I do acknowledge a strong statistical likelihood that the children of these non-nuclear families will be worse off. - You support homosexual relationships I support the right to enter in to them, absolutely. It's none of my business what is in someone else's heart, or what happens in their bedroom. - you look at children of homosexuals and judge their personality traits as related to the homosexuality of their parents Again, either projecting or lying here. I look at data, and acknowledge the fact that non-nuclear families produce worse outcomes on average. I make no claims at all about individuals of any group who may either exceed or fail to achieve the mean of their statistical group. Being from a non-nuclear family is not a guarantee of worse results, it simply makes worse results more likely. Did I miss anything in your logic? Tons, because you can't differentiate between statistics and bigotry.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 T Again, either projecting or lying here. I look at data, and acknowledge the fact that non-nuclear families produce worse outcomes on average. I make no claims at all about individuals of any group who may either exceed or fail to achieve the mean of their statistical group. Being from a non-nuclear family is not a guarantee of worse results, it simply makes worse results more likely. This all started because you tied someone's lack of intelligence to her gay parents you nitwit!
Recommended Posts