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

That's it is it? I have answered your questions but you won't answer mine?
I am keen, as is Lenka, for you to explain the very valid points I have made concerning your attributing this thread to the NAACP.
I can only conclude that you know this entire thread is absolute bullsh1t and you can't possibly give me an explanation because you have deliberately lied.


So you think that in homes where the parents are married, there is never any abuse? You are living in fairyland if you believe a couple of wedding rings somehow excludes parents from being abusive towards their children.

Now are you going to answer my questions or not? I have respectfully answered all of yours.

Of course he won't , we both know it. He's a master at it. Creating threads with very suggestive titles, quite often with false or manipulated data and then going on 'who? Me? I'm innocent'

But what studies? The ones you used creating this thread that never really existed?

No he won't Lenka.
I'm surprised that he can get away with it to be honest, because as far as I can see this thread should fall under trolling/flaming rules.
There is very little real information in the video or transcript, and he hasn't really referred to it at all. Just another pointless thread to wind people up.
Oh well, I'm glad my life isn't as sad as his. There must be something really wrong with him to constantly bang on about single mothers and homosexuals. I mean it isn't like they are going to impact on his life in any way at all.

Lenka you often fall short of reality, it is if you come from another galaxy and you want to be ultra modern and appease the new world order but what are you on about? Yes, single parent households are prone to produce children who are out of sorts, it is time you grew up a little Lenka and stopped being smart up here, you lack fundamental knowledge and life experience. I often wonder: what do you actually know about anything, what substantial knowledge do you have besides like snotty little girl jumping on someone who clearly knows way more than you and spinning your rethoric from your beetchy little convos with other beetchy girlfriends who as immature as you. Besides, I find you for most part to be quite a nasty character, although you would never think that of yourself.

If you follow the discussion you will see that it was established that this thread was created under false claims and that's what I referred to. If you have suitable data you are more then welcome to post them and we can discus.
P.S. I know I'm pretty awful towards few ppl here and I know why. Don't think your cheap and wrong analysis is anything of importance to me.

It is exactly that.

For one: fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/

Indeed. Basically a rant based on someone's views about how people should behave.

It is you who are living in a fairyland if you are unable to interpret basic facts. You are claiming someone said ALL married hosueolds live happily ever after, and ALL fatherless ones are hell on earth. Scholars tend to use "more likely or less likely" on the basis of statistical data, and such data show a complete family stands a better chance of raising emotionally well-developed and socialised kids. No more and no less.

I will look for some evidence, the only reason this topic is being discredited as because most of those who posted here are biased, Polonius is correct and his claims have substantiated time and time again by extensive research. As for your post scriptum at least you admit to your faults which is much more than anyone else has done here, but that is because you are Polish, we are more self critical. Western people, on the other hand, do not admit to their faults or do it sporadically, that is because Westerners are better than anyone else and they know it so they don't have to apologize for their mistakes.

Worra load of rubbish. Not but what, you actually mean you'll look online for something that agrees with your prejudices.

Families come in all shapes and sizes. If some people need a little more social support, so be it; it is society's duty to provide that support without moralising.

No sign of him anywhere at the moment. He's either googling feverishly or they've recaptured him and put him back in his restraints :))

I think that I have interpreted the basic facts about this thread quite accurately actually.
Your thread title was a quote by Obama and no expert from the NAACP was involved in the so called 'study', just American talk show host Larry Elder's interpretation of the problem. In addition you haven't even bothered to refer to the study throughout this whole trolling thread. Would you now like to address these basic facts?


Where did I claim that?


Well that certainly seems to be your interpretation of single parent families.


I see you have provided a link to some data. Did you actually bother to read it? Much of the data is well out of date to start with. I haven't read through all of it, but I thought you might have come up with something better than this. From your link:-

Under the section Drug and Alcohol abuse:-

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, "Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse."
This was written 23 years ago in 1993. How is that relevant today?

Under the section Physical and Emotional Health:-

Children of single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to commit suicide.
This was written in 2003.

Under the section Educational Achievement:-

71% of high school dropouts are fatherless; fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills;

This was from a 2012 source so more up to date, but it was from a psychologytoday.com blog. Not exactly evidence based data is it?
In addition the information is meaningless.71% of how many? 1000, 10,000, 10,000,000?

I am perfectly happy to accept that single parent families are likely to struggle more than families with two parents, not least because they are trying to live on one wage instead of two. I am not underestimating the effects of poverty and all the associated problems that go with it.
What i am not happy to accept is your attitude and the vile way you refer to those mothers, and you have used this thread only to sit in judgement of them.

And that is precisely why we have entire generations of benefit cheats, juvenile delinquents from father homes and other social misfits. There are families in the US and EU that have never done a stitch of work and often do better than those who hold down jobs. Such people are no asset to society and expanding their ranks is socially suicidal.

And we always have, since the beginning of time.


Bingo...

Unemployment benefits and other welfare hand-outs are a fairly recent innovation. In earlier times the Church ran shelters and soup kitchens for the indigent.
Everyone knows it is in the interests of leftist-liberal groups to promote widepsread benefits, because that generates the kind of people who cause trouble and cost society the most. The resultant confusion is grist to the mill of LGBT, feminist, gun rights and other controversial lobbies because it takes the heat and spotlight off their loathsome practices.

Unemployment benefits are far from being 'hand-outs' and very far from being new.

Unemployment benefit was started in the UK in 1911 by the liberals, since then it has spread around the world, can't see the point of it myself, sickness, healthcare and child support should be the priority, plenty of jobs in the world for people who want to work.

Remember it's a contributory benefit. You pay your National Insurance and you get support if your income stops.

Best not to confuse it with other payments.

And yes, however feckless someone might be, their kids still need feeding and deserve the same chance in life as a kid form a wealthier family.

"their kids still need feeding" that comes under child support , the feckless have family (maybe) if not soup kitchens and charitable organisations to turn to.

That system worked well up until the 1900's, why burden the hard working man with the feckless.

And there are many good reasons we no longer expect families to rely on

Who are his kids going to marry?

Of course we can always go back to the Middle Ages if you prefer...

"And there are many good reasons we no longer expect families to rely on soup kitchens"

Name some.

"Who are his kids going to marry?"

Someone with a job unless they want to rely on charity.

"Middle Ages if you prefer"

Some aspects of life were simpler in those days, nowadays your average dole boy expects a Iphone games console satellite tv , booze and fags.

Potatoes and gravy would get the feckless out looking for work.

And our society expects that their children are given the best chances in life. Not even the Tories suggest stopping benefits for the poorest families.

" benefits for the poorest families."

A huge amount of money is wasted on paying benefits to the punk kids of middle class families, the stay locked in their bedrooms playing games on the internet, they think that working at mc, donalds is below them when i say kids some are 35 years old.

Paying winter fuel allowance, tv licence to all, regardless of wealth, I know one tight ar$ed millionaire who claims his.

We need to get back to means tested benefits (Including house visits), only then will the genuine needy be protected and taken care of.

In fact the UK has one of the toughest benefits systems.


The elderly deserve it.


Fortunately stigmatising the needy is a thing of the past.

All countries would do well to tighten up their benefit requirements to make sure fraudsters are not getting aid they do not deserrve. Every able-bodied person must actively (not pro forma) seek employment or lose their benefits. Social workers are usually quite well informed as to what's what and who's who amongst their charges.

"seek employment or lose their benefits. Social workers are usually quite well informed "

Not here in Europe pol you can spend your life on the dole and never see a social worker, that,s the point one needs to be assigned to them.

"The elderly deserve it." , don't be an idiot and read what I wrote the rich and middle classes don't need it, those in need do

"Fortunately stigmatising the needy is a thing of the past."

Yeah so some of my old colleagues who were earning up to 100k pa were getting their child allowance payments, yea really useful to buy the kids a new ski suit for their annual skiing trip to Val d'Isère.

Oh sorry jon I retract idiot, too late to edit

That's now been stopped, though in principle a national basic income is a good idea.


That just doesn't happen nowadays.

Where I come from some blacks would drive up to the social benefits offices in their long late-model Cadillac saloons to collect their benefit cheques. Many live in delapidated hovels but the Cadillac is a ghetto status symbol which every "respectable" jobless should cove and aspire to acquire by by hook or croosk. So yes -- welfare cheats are not only known in Europe.
The money saved by tightening up payouts could be put to much betters use elsewhere.

The neigbourhoods such people inhabit are often classic slums: boarded up windows, grafitti everywhere, lawns overgrown with weeds, abandoned junk cars at the kerb and evey manner of olds discards (furniture, appliances) on porches. Able-bodied recipients getting payouts just because they're alive should be obliged to join a massive slum clean-up, paint-up fix-up campaign so people would not have to live like animals in decrepit, rat and cockroach-infested buildings.