• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

TownieDeac said:
Let's not pretend like it has anything to do with family structure. It's about money.

Two parents who can't afford to raise a kid are going to provide no better life than one parent who can't. Similarly, a single mom who can give her kid the best schools and home life is going to be a better parent than an abusive or neglectful or absentee two parent household.

It's such a dumb symbol, and a misdirection from the issues at hand (failed drug war, failed education system). It's also a misdirection because jhmd wants to take away the safety net that's already thinner than most of the developed world. Most single parents earn poverty wages in the US, which oddly enough doesn't hold in most developed countries. In spite of holding higher employment rates, they are paid worse and given worse UI, medical, and other benefits.

Not to mention (From the latest Congressional report on poverty):



What I meant by offensive earlier was that jh feels the need to always bring the discussion back to the asinine "two parent" canard.
Click to expand...

Spoken by someone who doesn't have any kids. Regardless of money, you don't think that two people can raise a kid better than one to provide a better life for that child? Newsflash that you may not have picked up from MOOC or YouTube: raising a kid is hard, a lot of it does not come naturally, and a lot of it is by trial and error. I know that I am a better parent by watching how my wife parents, and I think she is probably a better parent by watching me parent. And I am pretty sure that our kids are better for it. The ability to step back and reassess while the kids are with the other parent is enough alone to likely create a better end results with two parents more than one. And none of that has anything to do with money, but it does affect the ultimate outcome for the child.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Spoken by someone who doesn't have any kids. Regardless of money, you don't think that two people can raise a kid better than one to provide a better life for that child? Newsflash that you may not have picked up from MOOC or YouTube: raising a kid is hard, a lot of it does not come naturally, and a lot of it is by trial and error. I know that I am a better parent by watching how my wife parents, and I think she is probably a better parent by watching me parent. And I am pretty sure that our kids are better for it. The ability to step back and reassess while the kids are with the other parent is enough alone to likely create a better end results with two parents more than one. And none of that has anything to do with money, but it does affect the ultimate outcome for the child.
Click to expand...

Yeah but still.
 
The importance of a strong male role model in a boy's life cannot be overstated. It does not have to be the father, but it needs to be someone. Raising a boy with all of today's influences is hard as it is. Doing so without a father (or other strong male role model) damn near impossible. You can get by with a really strong mother that can take on the duel role of father/mother but it takes a really strong personality.

Absent that role model, the child will find someone less reputable to teach them how to become a man.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Spoken by someone who doesn't have any kids. Regardless of money, you don't think that two people can raise a kid better than one to provide a better life for that child? Newsflash that you may not have picked up from MOOC or YouTube: raising a kid is hard, a lot of it does not come naturally, and a lot of it is by trial and error. I know that I am a better parent by watching how my wife parents, and I think she is probably a better parent by watching me parent. And I am pretty sure that our kids are better for it. The ability to step back and reassess while the kids are with the other parent is enough alone to likely create a better end results with two parents more than one. And none of that has anything to do with money, but it does affect the ultimate outcome for the child.
Click to expand...

how dare you claim to know more than captain standardized test taker
 
In another life Roy Moore is probably bombing abortion clinics, that guy is an extremist.
 
If you believe in statistics measuring life outcomes, Townie is right. Poverty and SES is a much stronger predictor of childrens life outcomes than 2 parent homes according to statistical research
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
If you believe in statistics measuring life outcomes, Townie is right. Poverty and SES is a much stronger predictor of childrens life outcomes than 2 parent homes according to statistical research
Click to expand...

That is a pretty big caveat. How the hell does KenPom #advancedstat "life outcome"? If there was ever anything that could not be quantified, that has got to be it.
 
TownieDeac said:
Great, stats vs anecdotes, can't wait for more #jokes

Clearly I know fuck all about parenting. But it's really hard to legislate and affect policy change about family culture. It'd be great if everyone had two parents. There are ways of working towards it. So you could just beat the drum about how important families are and offer absolutely zero solutions. Or you could say, hey, over 300,000 people are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses in America. Hey, treatment delivered within the community is one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent such crimes and costs approximately $20,000 less than incarceration per person per year. A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community yields over $18 in cost savings related to crime. In comparison, prisons only yield $.37 in public safety benefit per dollar spent. Releasing people to supervision and making treatment accessible is an effective way of reducing problematic drug use, reducing crime associated with drug use and reducing the number of people in prison."

Maybe with that money saved we can talk about other ways of improving communities, like better schools for everyone, instead of just making sure jh's kids don't have to go to school with #poors.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting comment from someone who a) went to my high school and b) whose college costs $62,500.00 per year to attend. New Townie has let his anger get the best of him, and credibility is the first casualty.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
If you believe in statistics measuring life outcomes, Townie is right. Poverty and SES is a much stronger predictor of childrens life outcomes than 2 parent homes according to statistical research
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I understand this, are you saying the research indicates there isn't a statistical difference in life outcome between children raised in a 1PH and 2PH once SES is controlled for? I find that hard to believe but would be interested in reading the study. 2&2's line of thinking makes sense to me here versus Townie's claim.
 
TownieDeac said:
Great, stats vs anecdotes, can't wait for more #jokes

Clearly I know fuck all about parenting. But it's really hard to legislate and affect policy change about family culture. It'd be great if everyone had two parents. There are ways of working towards it. So you could just beat the drum about how important families are and offer absolutely zero solutions. Or you could say, hey, over 300,000 people are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses in America. Hey, treatment delivered within the community is one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent such crimes and costs approximately $20,000 less than incarceration per person per year. A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community yields over $18 in cost savings related to crime. In comparison, prisons only yield $.37 in public safety benefit per dollar spent. Releasing people to supervision and making treatment accessible is an effective way of reducing problematic drug use, reducing crime associated with drug use and reducing the number of people in prison."

Maybe with that money saved we can talk about other ways of improving communities, like better schools for everyone, instead of just making sure jh's kids don't have to go to school with #poors.
Click to expand...


At a certain point we should stop trying to quantify the success of the outcome and use some common sense that 2 parents are going to have an easier go at raising a child than a single parent.

That doesn't mean that a single parent household won't produce well reared children, or that a 2 parent household will always succeed. What it does suggest is that it's a job made significantly easier by 2 parents.
 
TownieDeac said:
Not even close to what MDMH said.
Click to expand...

But isn't it practically what you said when you posted, "Two parents who can't afford to raise a kid are going to provide no better life than one parent who can't." and MDMH said Townie is right because #stats?
 
TownieDeac said:
I am willing to concede that point because it's really not critical to any argument I'm making or to the central concept that the financial situation a kid is born into is more important, statistically speaking, than how many parents a kid has.
Click to expand...

you said that two parent households with no money are not better households for a child to grow up in than one parent households with no money. now people are asking you to prove it. so, prove it.
 
bmoneydeac said:
But isn't it practically what you said when you posted, "Two parents who can't afford to raise a kid are going to provide no better life than one parent who can't." and MDMH said Townie is right because #stats?
Click to expand...
Of course there are qualifications to that point, but the gist of what he said is statistically supported. SES and family structure are both predictive, SES is just a stronger predictor
 
TownieDeac said:
you're on here hollering about school choice every education thread, instead of talking about fixing bad schools

and college cost me about $5k/year + books, so chill with that
Click to expand...

You don't think that school choice---giving parents a chance to vote with their feet----would improve schools? Take off the Dem glasses and tell me that parents shouldn't have a say in where their kids go to school. This might be a curious thing to watch when Townie Jr. enrolls at his local magnet school and this becomes more of a live fire exercise for you.

Lotta #poors (by your definition) at Wake with you?
 
Last edited:
TownieDeac said:
it was theoretical to my larger point that money is more important than # of parents, i have no data to back it up
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Plenty of people with a lot of money fail to convert children into functioning adults. I mean, look at Millhouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top