Kids raised without fathers are 20 x more likely to end up in jail-NAACP

No, you've got it upside down as usual, probably deliberately in a typically malicious and trolling thread. Including of course your favourite word about women: "sluts". Yes, your comments are the language of a particularly vile old man. Or woman, not wanting to be sexist. Nobody else would write such a thing.

And you still haven't said how you're going to make single mothers have partners.

But somehow you never criticise your pet loudmouths when they do so. Is that fairness Irish style?

I'm not criticising you Polly dear. I'm just pointing out that you do exactly the same thing of which you accuse others so it's all a bit pointless. I can sense that you're bored this morning and doing that thing you do where you go round looking for threads that have gone a bit quiet and try to get something started again. Also you started a thread, one of those flimsy ones; you also do that when you're bored. I'm off out now anyway. Happy trolling:)

No, not about women as such but about immoral, loose-living females. If you're allergic to the S-word (sl*t), what do you call them: tramps, trollops, tarts, harlots. women of ill-repute (English has many relevant terms)?


Hardly bored with your compatriot O'Bama in town. Just a brief respite from the work at hand.

"immoral, loose-living females" "tramps, trollops, tarts, harlots. women of ill-repute"

There you go again, Po.,,

Well now actually Obama does have Irish connections and indeed I am very, very distantly related to the man. Basically a member of a branch of my family was married to a member of a branch of his family back in the 1700s. That network of connections is very interesting. The Protestant Anglo-Irish community was always much smaller than the Catholic one so almost everybody from a particular region of Ireland would be related to each other in some way. When I was teaching I discovered that I was related to my school principal, again through inter-marriage between Anglo-Irish families. We had several families in common in our family trees and I even managed to sort out our closest relationship and identify whom in her family had married whom in mine!

No, I'm, just asking for the terms you prefer to define such people, so don't evade the question. Every language must be able to accurately describe people, places and things, don't you think.

What people? People?

You know what this thread is about, but just to humour you I'łł repeat it s-l-o-w-l-y and cleeearly: Loose-living women of ill repute. And just to help your halting Polish along, here are some of the terms Poles use:
dziwka , puszczalska , panienka (spod latarni) , dziewczynka , mewka , szmata , ścierka , zdzira, łajdaczka , wywłoka , wycieruch , rura , suka , pinda , kurwa, kurwiszon , kurwiszcze , bladź , cichodajka , dupodajka , lafirynda ,, kobieta lekkich obyczajów , dziewczyna lekkiego prowadzenia , córa Koryntu , motylek nocny

"Loose-living women of ill repute"

That phrase, which you use to describe single mothers, says so much about you.

This is not about mothers but any women from 14 to 84 who are lewd, promiscuous and don't care about their reputaiton. Yes there are single mothers and even married mothers that also fit that description. The technical term for the former is fornicatrix and for the latter -- adultress.

The title of this thread (that you started) is:
Kids raised without fathers are 20 x more likely to end up in jail-NAACP
And then you say:

Simply amazing how vile you can be. Then you go on to say that:

You do realise that according to Polish law and a law in almost any developed country having sex with a 14 yo is a crime as such a young girl cannot understand the connotations of her acts?
Plus you admitted yourself that you created this thread to rant about women having sex and not to discuss the topic. That was just an excuse. Your typical tactic may I add.
I know one thing though- I would rather raise a kid alone than let someone like you near my baby.

Just to clarify, I used the term "thread" loosely and actually meant the strain of thought lower-case introduced when he pretended he didn't klnow what people I was referring to. So I patiently explained, although I knew he was just play-acting, as he often does. The whole thread is about fatherless households, so referring to those who inhabit them was only natural. The family is one of man's supreme values in the trintiy of: God, country and family. I realise there are those with different priorities such as: wealth, career, prestige and fun. Each to their own!

I have different values-being a good emphatic human being is one of the big things. Something that escapes you. There is a reason why you are opposed by so many ppl here. You are judgmental and vile in your opinions of others. Anyone who doesn't comply with your world view deserves insults in your opinion. There is a reason why you are opposed by most ppl here. Even Iron who has right-wing views came only to say that you are an old man stuck in his way. But imo it doesn't justify you- you should know better

That's a very worthwhile value. I myself am most concerned about children, their right to a happy childhood. People hear a lot about abortion rigthts, women's rights, gay rights, gun rights, transgender rights even animal rights but chidlren's rights are mentioned far less frequently. The free-wheeling libertine lifestyles so prevalent in the West have left in their wake confused, traumatised and unhappy children in fatherless households, foster care, patchwork families and other "alternative" arrangements which as a rule are no substitute for a complete, non-dysficntional family. Does that make one vile?

Here you go again.

Are not as a rule dysfunctional

Being complete doesn't mean the family in not dysfunctional.
As a fact I knew plenty in which one or even both parents should definitely be sepated from the kid.
I care about kids too and that's why I oppose your black and white reality in which no matter what kind of parent is better than single parenthood or adoption.
Have you ever met a kid sleeping hungry on a staircase because his 'full, traditional' family was too drunk to let him in?
Have you met a kid that almost killed his own father because the father was beating the mother?
I did.
So stop acting as if having a father solves all the problems. Sometimes that's exactly the reason why there are problems.

A violent, alcoholic father that beats his wife or live-in lover, destroys the flat in a drunken rage and steals food money for booze does not solve all problems, he IS the problem. Same with overly made-up, provocatively clad, joint-puffing good-time Suzies living it up and exposing her kids to a retinue of "uncles" filing through the family flat. But why seek out extreme examples jsut to prove soem point?
Far wiser people than you or me have researched the problem, and the NAACP video (did you watch it?) indicated that on balance a complete family (of course not every complete family!) is superior to raise kids in. In fact, even kids whose dads abandoned their families when the child was 5 or 10 are less likely to suffer adverse effects than those who never lived with a dad in the household.

Describing woman as "sluts" certainly does..


Indeed. Families come in all shapes and sizes. None is better than any other; what matters is the people involved and also the degree of support given to families who are vulnerable.

That reason could be that thinking people are usually opposed by the go-with-the-flow crowd that spout trendy buzzwords, fall for passing fads, crazes and fashions and maybe nerver heard the Polish saying: Najpierw pomyśl, to nic nie kosztuje! (First think it over - it won't cost you a single penny!)

But that's what you do all the time. How often did you call single mothers slu*s, or irresponsible fun seeking scatter brain.With you it's always one or the other. Either God fearing, decent, traditional or almost-satan, selfish and progresive. When we try to show you that it's not that easy you ignore it.

I did see few minutes long, playing on emotions, video not the research itself. And the video focused more on the rates of single parent family (the didn't even say a word about families were the father is the single parent).

I have only referred to irresponsible fun-seeking scatter brains as irresponsible fun-seeking scatter brains. Never said all of any groups are all identical. The video and researchers usually say "more likely to". But whether a majority or only a fraction of people act irresponsibly, it's a crying shame what their kids have to go through. Yes, all kids matter.
Rather than trying to insult or psychoanalyse me, why not give your opinion on why this is so? What causes so many people to act irresponsibly? Is it in the genes or their environment, race, social status, occupation or a combination of some or all of those elements?

I have an explanation- ppl are not perfect, never were, never will be. You should know it better than anyone. With the women having the possibility and means to support themself man don't feel that without them the woman and the kids will die of hunger and women don't think they have to rely on man.
It's sad that kids go through any kind of misfortune however AGAIN I don't think being raised without a father (if we don't know what kind of a father that man would be) is misfortune on it's own.
If you ask why the kids end up in jail when they are grown up I think it's few factors :
Lower income so worse area to live in
One parent may mean less time spend with the kids (one can do only so much- between work, housework and taking care of the basic stuff the time for the kid may be hard to come by)
Social stigma as a 'worse'' kid raised by 'worse' parents
No stable role model of a man (although here again a grandfather, uncle e.t.c. may take over)
And finally the kids own choices when they grow up. Being raised without a father doesn't absolve them of their responsibility .
I would really like to see that study instead of the video. It would be nice to know what factors they considered.

I have watched the video and read the transcript.

1) Would you mind telling me why you have written that the video has anything to do with an expert from the NAACP, when it is American conservative talk show host Larry Elder's take on problems within the American black community? The only reference to the NAACP is a one line sentence that Larry Elder quotes from an interview he had with the then president of the NAACP years before.

2) Would you also mind telling me why you are attributing this thread title " kids without fathers are 20 times more than likely to end up in jail " to the NAACP, when it was Obama who made that statement, as written in the transcript?

You wouldn't by any chance be deliberately lying would you, or trying to twist the truth as per your usual bullsh1t threads where you make it up as you go along?

Doubtless I won't receive a reply to these questions just as you chose to ignore my other questions on this thread. I wonder why that might be?

Anyway, it doesn't matter what arguments anyone on this thread puts forward. The whole thread is an excuse for you to denigrate single parents as you have done on other threads before. You are not interested in other peoples' opinions, you only want to slag off anyone who doesn't conform to your standards and twisted views.

Are you a big fan of single parents? If so, why? On balance, do they do a better job of parenting?

Why don't you answer Chemikiem's questions first? She raised very lovely points on how you manipulate the narrative. I would love to see what you can say about it.

As I thought, instead of answering my questions, you ignore them and pose questions of your own.
I repeat, why are you trying to attribute anything in that video, and your thread title to the NAACP? Surely PF members have a right to some proper statistics instead of Larry Elder citing rapper Tupac saying he wouldn't have run with gangs if he had had a father figure around, and the experiences of Larry King's father?

No, what you are doing is the same thing you did when you started the thread about the heart warming mass you attended, where you were happy to see so many kids there whose parents were wearing wedding rings. You remember that thread don't you?
I asked you if the scene would have looked any the less heart warming had those parents not been wearing wedding bands, but you ignored that question too.

In fact I would love to know why you refuse to answer the questions I pose. Could it be that if you answered them honestly, it would show that in actual fact the threads you start are non-threads as such, as this one is, created only so you can take the moral high ground and sit in judgment of others?
Then you have the nerve to say you care about children. No you don't, you only want to slag off their mothers which is what you have done throughout this entire thread.


It is not a question of being a fan, I simply don't see that you have the right to refer to them as s.luts, and a whole plethora of equally insulting other terms. Who are you to make those sort of judgments?
Single parents have to try to the best of their ability, to do the job of both parents.Yet you see fit to condemn them, how very christian of you.
But coming from someone who also refers to the homeless as 'scum', I expected nothing more.
You have the habit of seeing everything in black or white when it is never that simple.

I will end with another question of mine you refused to answer. Do you think that war widows who were left to bring up their fatherless children alone deserve the tag of s.luts? Do you think that they 'ran with gangs, did drugs, had a never ending stream of uncles for their kids?' Overnight they became single parents too, but according to your world view, instead of thinking that maybe these women deserved all the help they could get, you see them as s'luts, w.hores, suka.

Please don't call your yourself a Catholic, you are an absolute insult to the faith.

This study was in American, its a different society to Europe.

Oops, instead of 'study' I should have said, 'the sordid opinion of an evil and depraved mind who is definitely going to his Hell'

I wouldn't even classify it as a study to be honest although I think your interpretation was pretty spot on ;)

The only reference to the NAACP in both the video and transcript is an answer given to the question Larry Elder posed years earlier to an ex NAACP president:-

"As between the presence of white racism and the absence of black fathers," I asked, "Which poses the bigger threat to the black community?" Without missing a beat, he said, "The absence of black fathers."

A five word sentence in a video and transcript that Polonius erroneously, oops, deliberately ascribed to the NAACP, and not to the real author, Larry Elder, American talk show host.

Merely trying to point out how such incomplete, disabled households are more likely to deprive and harm children, although exceptions can always be found. But statistically studies have shown that to be true.