Abstinence 'is not realistic,' Palin's daughter says

[Ravi]

Catz, seriously, this study is very flawed. And I wouldn't care except that if you convince people that being a single-parent puts your children at risk without any real evidence you encourage parents to stay in abusive marriages. Or you encourage them to micromanage and over-protect their kids...adding to the wussification of Americans everywhere.

 

[Againsheila]

Catz, seriously, this study is very flawed. And I wouldn't care except that if you convince people that being a single-parent puts your children at risk without any real evidence you encourage parents to stay in abusive marriages. Or you encourage them to micromanage and over-protect their kids...adding to the wussification of Americans everywhere.

How about encouraging single women everywhere not to have children unless the man is going to be a good father?

 

[Ravi]

Catz, seriously, this study is very flawed. And I wouldn't care except that if you convince people that being a single-parent puts your children at risk without any real evidence you encourage parents to stay in abusive marriages. Or you encourage them to micromanage and over-protect their kids...adding to the wussification of Americans everywhere.

How about encouraging single women everywhere not to have children unless the man is going to be a good father?

That would be nice, too..but a lot of single mothers are single mothers because of divorce.

 

[catzmeow]

Which makes me wonder...how many families in the study are single-parent and how many are two-parent. High crime neighborhoods tend to have more single-parent households so the answer to that question could make even their correlation incorrect.

The study used study youth and a comparison group of youth who lived in similar circumstances. Most reputable longterm studies do.

 

[Ravi]

Which makes me wonder...how many families in the study are single-parent and how many are two-parent. High crime neighborhoods tend to have more single-parent households so the answer to that question could make even their correlation incorrect.

The study used study youth and a comparison group of youth who lived in similar circumstances. Most reputable longterm studies do.

Then their correlation is flawed.

 

[catzmeow]

Catz, seriously, this study is very flawed. And I wouldn't care except that if you convince people that being a single-parent puts your children at risk without any real evidence you encourage parents to stay in abusive marriages. Or you encourage them to micromanage and over-protect their kids...adding to the wussification of Americans everywhere.

Yeah. As a professional social scientist, you definitely have credibility in pronouncing this study flawed. One what basis do you proclaim it flawed, oh Doctoral one?

 

[KittenKoder]

So one cannot become pregnant via a mistake? I never said the child was a mistake.

Let me use small words so you understand.

If a young man or woman find themselves in a situation where an unplanned pregnancy occurs, a mistake if you will, they should be held 100% responsible for the consequences of their actions.

that means if abortion is their choice, they and they alone pay for it.

That means if they choose to give the resulting offspring up for adoption, they pay for 100% of the care until the adoption is final.

Is that so hard to understand?

Repeating for the second time, your own words:

"Maybe if we let these young adults have to live with the consequences of their actions, you know no free abortions, no safe haven laws, etc.

If you get pregnant, YOU pay for your own ******* mistake. Then I'll bet you teen pregnancy rates will fall faster than the stock market ."

That punishes the babies. Are those words and are innocent babies small enough for you?

being allowed to live is punishment ?

It can be.

 

[Ravi]

Catz, seriously, this study is very flawed. And I wouldn't care except that if you convince people that being a single-parent puts your children at risk without any real evidence you encourage parents to stay in abusive marriages. Or you encourage them to micromanage and over-protect their kids...adding to the wussification of Americans everywhere.

Yeah. As a professional social scientist, you definitely have credibility in pronouncing this study flawed. One what basis do you proclaim it flawed, oh Doctoral one?

Read my posts. Why didn't they explore verbal or physical abuse?

 

[catzmeow]

Then their correlation is flawed.

NO, dear, it isn't. Because kids who lived in single parent homes in this community joined gangs at a rate that was 240% higher than youth who were in two parent households in the same neighborhood.

It's amazing how your pretzel yourself. SSDS is one of, if not THE MOST, respected social development studies on risk factors in the country. I'm sorry, but your expertise is not sufficient that your claim is credible.

I'm familiar with a number of communities that have higher than average rates of two parent homes, and still have kids involved in gangs, but the kids in single parent homes STILL join gangs at a much higher rate.

 

[catzmeow]

Read my posts. Why didn't they explore verbal or physical abuse?

They explored close to a hundred factors, and the risk factors on page 4 of the document I provided were the ones that correlated to gang joining and delinquency.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay ... a tough question: Are those against abortion also for forced adoptions or sterilizations?

 

[Ravi]

NO, dear, it isn't. Because kids who lived in single parent homes in this community joined gangs at a rate that was 240% higher than youth who were in two parent households in the same neighborhood.

It's amazing how your pretzel yourself. SSDS is one of, if not THE MOST, respected social development studies on risk factors in the country. I'm sorry, but your expertise is not sufficient that your claim is credible.

So tell us then, what percentage of the homes were single parent and what percentage were two parent?

 

[catzmeow]

So tell us then, what percentage of the homes were single parent and what percentage were two parent?

I don't know, you'd have to do further research, and I encourage you to do so. But, the point of having a study group and a control group is that you try to MATCH THEM DEMOGRAPHICALLY, which includes family structure.

Hawkins and Catellano are THE PREEMINENT researchers in the field of risk/resiliency, and their work has been scrutinized for two decades. The fact that you don't understand their work doesn't make it less credible to anyone who understands these social issues.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's the thing that studies like that forget, poor people join gangs to fight back, rich kids become emo.

 

[Ravi]

So tell us then, what percentage of the homes were single parent and what percentage were two parent?

I don't know, you'd have to do further research, and I encourage you to do so.

Yeah, I figured. They don't know either.

 

[catzmeow]

Okay ... a tough question: Are those against abortion also for forced adoptions or sterilizations?

Why would we be? And, for the record, I'm not against all abortions, just those after 24 weeks when the fetus is viable.

 

[catzmeow]

Yeah, I figured. They don't know either.

Okay, so let me sum this up. I've provided you with credible research performed by people who are THE EXPERTS in the field. And you, with your zero years of experience in social development research, have dismissed their findings and provided no evidence to back up YOUR position.

Is that how you generally argue your case?

And people find you credible?

I seriously have to wonder why anyone even responds to you.

 

[catzmeow]

Here's the thing that studies like that forget, poor people join gangs to fight back, rich kids become emo.

Jesus Christ. If you don't understand research, don't make yourself look even more ignorant.

 

[catzmeow]

Can someone explain to me why people like Anguille and Ravi are so invested in the idea that having a dad present in a home isn't important to kids' well-being? Because, this ain't rocket science, and I don't get why this particular paradigm is so important that it makes them incapable of being rational.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Can someone explain to me why people like Anguille and Ravi are so invested in the idea that having a dad present in a home isn't important to kids' well-being? Because, this ain't rocket science, and I don't get why this particular paradigm is so important that it makes them incapable of being rational.

Because if they acknowledge that a mom and dad are the best family unit then that blows up any argument that two dads or two moms are just as good.
Or a dad and a goat. Or mom and a monkey etc...