Tyreek Hill Covering Photographer's Salary

[thenorthremembers]

1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

He is one of the ugliest human beings on earth; is 5’7”; and has a history of beating women and kids. But he is really fast and worth $30 million! 
 

women are amazing but it’s hilarious what they will look past for security. Could you imagine if you met the female version of Tyreek? Would you ever want to get her pregnant? 🤮

 

It's cyclical.  The women probably never had a proper example of a man in the home growing up so thats what they look for in a mate.

 

Can't stress enough how important having a Father in the home is.  Sadly, family values have went out the window and society supports it.  

[WhoTom]

1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said:

 

It's cyclical.  The women probably never had a proper example of a man in the home growing up so thats what they look for in a mate.

 

Can't stress enough how important having a Father in the home is.  Sadly, family values have went out the window and society supports it.  

 

Ah, the myth of the Cleaver family. News flash: not all fathers are Ward Cleaver.

 

I know several families in which the father is a loser but the wife stays "for the sake of the kids." Maybe they got married too young, maybe they got married because of an unplanned pregnancy, or whatever. In those cases, the kids are much better off without their father. Back in the "good old days," those women would be chastised for leaving a marriage - even a bad one, and even if the guy was beating on the kids.

 

What kids need are good role models, regardless of gender. I know a single mother whose 17-year-old son is a great kid. He studies hard, plays hockey, plays violin, and is a genuinely compassionate person, as is his mother. I know many divorced women raising their kids on their own because the fathers were jerks. Most have well-adjusted children - certainly better off than they'd be if their fathers were at home. Love, respect, work ethic, compassion - those are family values that any decent person can teach to their children.

 

There's no need to go back to 1950 to find family values. 

 

 

[RiotAct]

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

He is one of the ugliest human beings on earth; is 5’7”; and has a history of beating women and kids. But he is really fast and worth $30 million! 
 

women are amazing but it’s hilarious what they will look past for security. Could you imagine if you met the female version of Tyreek? Would you ever want to get her pregnant? 🤮

but he’s rich… and a future porn star.

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

He is one of the ugliest human beings on earth; is 5’7”; and has a history of beating women and kids. But he is really fast and worth $30 million! 
 

women are amazing but it’s hilarious what they will look past for security. Could you imagine if you met the female version of Tyreek? Would you ever want to get her pregnant? 🤮

but he’s rich… and a future porn star.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, WhoTom said:

 

Ah, the myth of the Cleaver family.

 

 

It’s not a myth. Numerous studies have shown that children raised in a “nuclear family” are more likely to be successful and less likely to commit crime.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26986779/#:~:text=The socio-demographic characteristics were,scores When we compared the

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6889959/

 

These results don’t imply that it’s not possible to raise a successful or “good” child without a nuclear family - just that it is more difficult to do so.

[thenorthremembers]

30 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

Ah, the myth of the Cleaver family. News flash: not all fathers are Ward Cleaver.

 

I know several families in which the father is a loser but the wife stays "for the sake of the kids." Maybe they got married too young, maybe they got married because of an unplanned pregnancy, or whatever. In those cases, the kids are much better off without their father. Back in the "good old days," those women would be chastised for leaving a marriage - even a bad one, and even if the guy was beating on the kids.

 

What kids need are good role models, regardless of gender. I know a single mother whose 17-year-old son is a great kid. He studies hard, plays hockey, plays violin, and is a genuinely compassionate person, as is his mother. I know many divorced women raising their kids on their own because the fathers were jerks. Most have well-adjusted children - certainly better off than they'd be if their fathers were at home. Love, respect, work ethic, compassion - those are family values that any decent person can teach to their children.

 

There's no need to go back to 1950 to find family values. 

 

 

Just because you know a few outliers doesn't mean data supports fatherless homes being beneficial to children.   

 

Children from fatherless homes are 4 times more likely to grow up in poverty.  71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.   Kids from fatherless homes are more likely to engage in criminal activity, abuse alcohol and drugs, have behavioral and mental disorders, and father/mother children outside of wedlock.

 

Yes, some kids are probably better off not having a jerk for a Dad.  But if you want to argue any point that kids aren't better off, more well adjusted, and more likely to have high self esteem because they had a Dad in the home, you'll fight a losing battle.  Stop speaking in instances and look at the problem as a whole.

 

But what do I know, I am a product of a Fatherless home.

[WhoTom]

31 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

 

It’s not a myth. Numerous studies have shown that children raised in a “nuclear family” are more likely to be successful and less likely to commit crime.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26986779/#:~:text=The socio-demographic characteristics were,scores When we compared the

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6889959/

 

These results don’t imply that it’s not possible to raise a successful or “good” child without a nuclear family - just that it is more difficult to do so.

 

One of those studies says this:

Quote

Our attention to young adults’ family structure history is focused on their exposure to maternal union instability, or a mother’s repeated changes in union status when a young adult was between 0 and 17 years old.

 

Those who experience high levels of family instability (three or more transitions) are not only more likely to be arrested, but are also significantly more likely to experience incarceration in adulthood. These findings point to a need for criminologists to move beyond the classic, yet static focus on “broken homes” toward measures of family instability, which more accurately capture the dynamic nature of modern family contexts.

 

children who experience repeated changes in family structure are more likely to experience precarious starts to their own eventual family formation. Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its two child-centered supplemental studies (N=1,127), we find that the experience of repeated family structure change is associated with higher rates of arrest and incarceration during early adulthood for white men but not for black men. This association is partially mediated by a slower transition to marriage among men who experienced three or more changes in family structure during childhood.

 

 

 

 

[thenorthremembers]

32 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

One of those studies says this:

 

 

 

 

Right, you're proving my exat point.  You may want to point to a study about repeated changes in family structure, but isn't that mutually synonymous with a Fatherless home? 

 

Point being a child raised in a fatherless home is more likely to have a Mother who has multiple partners during their Adolescence.   Just going from the father to another partner counts as two family structures.   As such, the study you point to further proves the statistics I listed regarding Fatherless homes.

 

 

[WhoTom]

1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said:

Just because you know a few outliers doesn't mean data supports fatherless homes being beneficial to children.   

 

 

The so-called "outliers" to which I'm referring are educated professionals with stable careers. Neither of the studies cited above looked at other factors like socioeconomic status. Most of the studies that I've read have concurred that a two-parent household is, in general, the best situation. I don't deny that. But they've also concluded that it depends on other variables that often accompany single motherhood: low education levels and income, no support structure, etc. A lot of society's problems are caused by poverty. Some single parents have to work long hours to survive - hence the "latchkey kids" issue. But that's also true in two-parent households where both parents have to work. 

 

So while I agree that a two-parent household offers the highest probability of successful children, it's not a guarantee, just as single parenting doesn't guarantee failure.