Tom Brady is father to 2 children??

[Tspot-D-Ravenator]

Tom Brady has been said to have two celebraties pregnant...He's not married to either so,:eyes: I guess he'll have some paternity suits like Willis McGahee...Bet there won't be too big a stink about Brady like there has been about McGahee....:nerd:

[PurpleRulz]

Tom Brady has been said to have two celebraties pregnant...He's not married to either so,:eyes: I guess he'll have some paternity suits like Willis McGahee...Bet there won't be too big a stink about Brady like there has been about McGahee....:nerd:

Don't you get it? When a "Willis McGahee" has 3 paternity suits in two years, he is said to have "character issues." When a "Tom Brady" is fathering babies left and right, we don't bring his character into issue. Don't you just love America. :usa: :eyes:

[RavensInBrazil]

Paternity suits? The moms are like super-rich, aren't they? Then again, the publicity...

[bassgtrst]

Ray's got like 9 kids. Its not a big deal.

People are just looking to find fault in Willis because if they didnt they would have nothing to talk about.

[Ravenatic20]

haha Ray only has 3 kids, from one mother I believe. But I don't care, and neither does the media. They find other ways to attack him.

[TTRaven]

haha Ray only has 3 kids, from one mother I believe. But I don't care, and neither does the media. They find other ways to attack him.

No Ray does have like 9 different kids from 6 different mothers. I don't care how many kids he has though, as long as he can take care of all them financially cause we know he's not a part of their life with his career and all.

[Admin Steve]

Tom Brady has been said to have two celebraties pregnant...He's not married to either so,:eyes: I guess he'll have some paternity suits like Willis McGahee...Bet there won't be too big a stink about Brady like there has been about McGahee....:nerd:

Umm...Dad?

[bassgtrst]

Watch him be Anna Nicole Smith's kids's dad.

[festivus]

Anyone remember when Kweisi Mfume was running for the House about fifteen years ago, and someone tried to embarrass him by pointing out he had a bunch of kids by a few different mothers?

He brought them all - kids, mothers - to a speaking event and basically lectured everyone on how proud he was of all the kids, and how proud he was to take care of them.

It was a nice moment in politics, which is really saying something. :)

[crazyraven]

Leave Tom Brady alone and I imagine the media will as well. So What, if he has a few kids by different women. The family structure in America is not like it once was. Many couples are choosing not to get married or raising kids with out the traditional mothers and fathers. This is a new America. I say good for him.

[LBoogy]

Leave Tom Brady alone and I imagine the media will as well. So What, if he has a few kids by different women. The family structure in America is not like it once was. Many couples are choosing not to get married or raising kids with out the traditional mothers and fathers. This is a new America. I say good for him.

I mean, I think we should leave these guys alone and not invade their personal lives, but you are way off base here.

The new America? Is that something to be proud of? Having multiple children out of wedlock so the kid doesn't have a mother and a father together? Why would you promote that? Why is that "good" for Tom Brady? It certainly isn't good for the child.

And I don't know if it's so much of couples "choosing" to raise kids and not get married, or even stay together. I don't think Willis McGahee went around with the intentions to have 3 different children from 3 different mothers. Believe it or not, that's not the greatest environment to grow up in.

Back to my main point, though. I really don't care what these guys do with their lives (to an extent) unless it affects the team or their play. It's not really any of our business.

[52RAYVENS]

Ray's got like 9 kids. Its not a big deal.

People are just looking to find fault in Willis because if they didnt they would have nothing to talk about.

:iagree:

[purplepoe]

Don't you get it? When a "Willis McGahee" has 3 paternity suits in two years, he is said to have "character issues." When a "Tom Brady" is fathering babies left and right, we don't bring his character into issue. Don't you just love America. :usa: :eyes:

Uh, excuse me?

When it came out that Tom Brady's ex girlfriend was pregnant, it was ALL over the news.

It was the lead story on tons of talk shows. I listened to Dan Patrick talk about it for hours. Articles were written in many papers. Columnists for being interviewd about the articles written.

And you do know what paternity "suits" are, correct?

They are brought upon when the father is refusing to take responsiblity for the child or children.

Sorry, but either I missed it or Brady certainly isn't being sued.

Many celebrities/athletes have children out of wedlock. You don't hear about it because most acknowledge the children and at the least, take care of them financially.

Seems like Willis didn't want to do that and in turn got sued 3 times by 3 women.

It's not even in the same ballpark as Brady or many other athletes.

PP

[LBoogy]

I agree 100% with PP, but I really am in no mood to argue with PR about the usual.

[crazyraven]

Why is that "good" for Tom Brady? It certainly isn't good for the child
It is good for the child if brady's a father and not trying to be a deadbeat dad like our new RB has been.


When a "Tom Brady" is fathering babies left and right, we don't bring his character into issue. Don't you just love America

The key word is fathering.

[braven98]

and what does this have to do with with the ravens

[highwater]

Don't you get it? When a "Willis McGahee" has 3 paternity suits in two years, he is said to have "character issues." When a "Tom Brady" is fathering babies left and right, we don't bring his character into issue.

And who is "we" in your above quote? I don't know what planet you are living on, but Brady's behavior is certainly drawing attention.

[Tspot-D-Ravenator]

and what does this have to do with with the ravens

Apparently you didn't read my entire thread! :nerd:

[Tspot-D-Ravenator]

And who is "we" in your above quote? I don't know what planet you are living on, but Brady's behavior is certainly drawing attention.

Yes, it is all over the news but, they are not putting Tom Brady down or speaking as if he is a criminal...Like they speak of McGahee...I've heard people glorifying Brady because he is with Giselle Butchen....Just sounding like a double standard to me...:nerd: I don't condone any of their behavior, but Brady is still a hero to many and they sorta are alright with Brayd's behavior....

[Greg]

Anyone remember when Kweisi Mfume was running for the House about fifteen years ago, and someone tried to embarrass him by pointing out he had a bunch of kids by a few different mothers?

He brought them all - kids, mothers - to a speaking event and basically lectured everyone on how proud he
was of all the kids, and how proud he was to take care of them.
Uh, he was running for the Senate. He is the former NAACP chairman and was elected to the House many years ago and served several terms.

And okay, so he is proud or whatever, but did he ever pay the tax payers back who paid for his children? Didn't hear about that, but most if not all of those mothers (5 children from 4 women) were on welfare.

There is something wrong with it.

[purplepoe]

Yes, it is all over the news but, they are not putting Tom Brady down or speaking as if he is a criminal...Like they speak of McGahee...I've heard people glorifying Brady because he is with Giselle Butchen....Just sounding like a double standard to me...:nerd: I don't condone any of their behavior, but Brady is still a hero to many and they sorta are alright with Brayd's behavior....

HELLO!

Tom Brady isn't being SUED by 3 women.

He's acknowledged the pregnancy and said he looks forward to being the child's father.

Can you not see the difference?

PP

[Greg]

There's a small difference, but Tom Brady writing big checks and seeing his kid every other weekend isn't being a father. It's one thing to go through a divorce and want to be a father each and every day and another to fitting a kid into your schedule when convenient.

My respect for Brady has taken a nose dive.

[crazyraven]

The guy doesnt want to commit to one woman. Nothing wrong with that as long as he pays the bills and is part of the kids life. That Honey I'm home nonesense is long gone.

[camdenyard]

That Honey I'm home nonesense is long gone.

If you honestly believe that, then you are part of the problem.

I doubt that all of those single mothers and the kids on the street with absentee fathers with nothing better to do than kick beer cans around - or nobody to do it with - share your opinion.

[festivus]

That Honey I'm home nonesense is long gone.

Link, please.

[darb72]

There's a small difference, but Tom Brady writing big checks and seeing his kid every other weekend isn't being a father. It's one thing to go through a divorce and want to be a father each and every day and another to fitting a kid into your schedule when convenient.
The thing is Greg, if the mother has custody of the child, that might be the visitation rights.

[Greg]

The guy doesnt want to commit to one woman. Nothing wrong with that as long as he pays the bills and is part of the kids life. That Honey I'm home nonesense is long gone.
Kids raised without their father in the home are much more likely to have troubled lives.

Girls without fathers are much more likely to be depressed, become sexually active earlier and thus get pregnant or pick up a disease. Boys without fathers are much more likely to commit crimes, become drug addicts, drop out of school and end up in prison.

There is a reason social taboos exist, it is because society figured out long ago children raised in a nuclear family grow up to be happier, healthier and more productive. It's a shame we have dismissed it in favor of a feel good society with a bunch of men more interested in getting their rocks off than being a responsible father for the children they have brought into this world.

Darb, then maybe he should keep it in his pants, if you aren't able to, for any reason, be a full time father you shouldn't be having sex. </SOAPBOX>

[highwater]

Many couples are choosing not to get married or raising kids with out the traditional mothers and fathers. This is a new America. I say good for him.

This is the dumbest thing I've read on this board since CR's idiotic rant about how he's too busy to clear ice and snow off the roof of his car. Look, Tom Brady's personal life is none of my business and I don't really care too much what he does, but saying "good for him" because he's having kids out of wedlock? What exactly is good about that? And don't tell me it's good because he's writing big checks because (1) you don't know if he is, and (2) there is more to being a father than writing checks.

[Greg]

crazyraven is more interested in orgasms than responsiblity to children.

[festivus]

Greg, Crazy stated "That honey I'm home nonsense is dead." That's a statement of fact. Surely in a moment he will back it up with a link. If he can't or won't, perhaps he is mistaken, or making a (very) broad generalization based on his personal life experience.

Speaking of links, here (http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/43.html)'s an interesting statistic:
> 52.6 percent of related U.S. children under six who live in families
> with female householders with no husband present were in poverty
> in 2004, about five times the rate of their counterparts in married
> couple families (10.1 percent).

Nice. Greg, as you can see, nearly half of the single mom householders with kids under six make so much we don't even think of them as impoverished.

I can't see why you would find the practice of having kids outside wedlock inappropriate at all. Contraception being so darned difficult and all.

:brickwall:

[highwater]

Nicely done, Festivus. But it will naturally sail over CR's head.

[festivus]

As I said. :brickwall:

[darb72]

Darb, then maybe he should keep it in his pants, if you aren't able to, for any reason, be a full time father you shouldn't be having sex. </SOAPBOX>

If I remember correctly, sex was a pretty fun way to pass the time back when I was having it. Now unless Brady was raping that woman, which I'm pretty sure he wasn't, then she shares the responsiblity for birth control.

Let's say they both agreed to have the child. We all know custody is going to the mother 90% of the time unless she's proven unfit. Brady and What'sHerName don't have a relationship like normal people do. They don't live in the same town and work 9-to-5 jobs. For the first couple of years every other weekend is probably the best plan for visitation rights. Brady will be flying off for away games, sponsorships, ect... She'll have movies to shoot, blah blah blah... It's just better for the child not to be flying all over the country.

Now I'm not defending Brady, nor am I bashing the guy which is pretty much my attitude towards Willis. I don't know enough about either situation to instantly declare the guys jerks.

[crazyraven]

Greg, Crazy stated "That honey I'm home nonsense is dead." That's a statement of fact. Surely in a moment he will back it up with a link. If he can't or won't, perhaps he is mistaken, or making a (very) broad generalization based on his personal life experience.

Well look I dont have a link to support what I said and true its an absoute generalization but look around and open your eyes. I see many people either getting diviorced or playing the field and not owning up to there responsiblities. I know a few maryland based cops who have families without any marriage and each one provides and is part of their childrens lives.

Now It seems the stats that you provide show that (women) who go at it alone are in poverty. That's a lot different than what where talking about here. Who said brady is not helping out? Who said he was a deadbeat dad? If he is then hell ya, fuck him but he's a good guy and even if hes not Im sure he has enough Money or the right PR people to at least make the problem go away to benifit himself , the woman and the child. Marriage isnt for everyone. So what?

[festivus]

Crazy -
I know plenty of police, too, and I'll leave it at that, if you know what I mean.

Noone's saying Brady's a deadbeat, but Greg was saying, hey, that's not the fatherly thing to do, I respect him less. Children growing up in a single parent home tend to suffer various ills, and even if Brady helps out as best he can, (a) he's not *there* for his kids, and (b) he's not exactly setting the best example for young football fans around the globe.

> So what?
So his behavior is, in the eyes of some like myself, less respectable. It's an opinion, grounded in tradition though as you point out, not universally held.

That's what Greg was saying, I'm inclined to agree with him myself. I do, like yourself, hope dad Brady is doing what he can, from a distance.

:toast:

[Greg]

The guy's children are a lot more likely to have many problems because there is no father present. Money does NOT solve that.

A perfect example; Anna Nicole Smith's son who just died 6 months or so ago. If I thought crazyraven were reasonable enough that he could be swayed I would look up the statistics of children raised in homes without fathers. I am currently reading Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters (http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Fathers-Daughters-Secrets-Father/dp/1596980125) and the facts are plain and clear. In this case it deals just with daughters, the facts are even more stark for boys without fathers who will find male role models to emulate. And often those they emulate are the ones they see with money who don't work. Wonder how they get that money?

It is just fucking irresponsible to have children outside marriage and stick the rest of us with the societal ills created, his money makes up for some of it but not all of it.

[Greg]

Does not effect me/ my family/ my bank acct./ my tix price/ my team.....who cares
The societal ills this kind of behavior causes does indeed affect you daily. Your taxes are higher because of it, your likelyhood of being a crime victim is, your family is less safe, etc. It actually effects you detrimentally in every aspect of you and your family's life.

[Greg]

No, I am not, the statistics clearly show that children that grow up without fathers are more likely to:
a. be drug addicts
b. be criminals
c. be on welfare
d. get pregnant as teenagers
e. drop out of school

and that is just scratching the surface.

If you don't think these things raise our taxes, well..., I don't want to insult you.

[BertJonesMyHero]

1 or 2 of you need to stop beating around the bush and say it. You are blaming what you believe to be a race discrepancy. As was pointed out, this has been all over the news. I hate it when half the NBA has multiple kids by multiple babies Mommas, and I now hate that Brady has multiple kids in the same manner. It just shows an utter lack of maturity. Sure they can afford it- But that isn't the point. He didn't even have a few years in between. 2 different women at the same darn time.

[Greg]

The Leave It To Beaver days are over, which is demonstrated by decreased marriage numbers and children outside of marriage.
LOL, and did the increase in all of those societal ills that coincided with that escape your attention.

And no, poverty does not beget poverty. POOR BEHAVIOR BEGETS POVERTY! People are poor because they behave poorly, they do not behave poorly because they are poor. The statistics also prove that out.

If you want we can take this to the political forum where I can pull out reems and reems of data that prove that kids from households without fathers have more difficulties than those from nuclear families. And I can show you where the wealth of the family, or class if you prefer, isn't the determinate.

By the way, I am from a divorced, middle class family, I understand it from the logical, statistical point of view because I have read about it. I also understand it from the inside out. As a father maybe you don't understand the impact as much. Sorry, just the way it is.

[purplepoe]

Greg is 100% on point.

My original point in this thread was to distinguish between Brady and McGahee.

Brady isn't being sued by 3 different women.

McGahee is.

THAT is a major difference.

PP

[BertJonesMyHero]

I understand this is not the 1950's anymore. If an unmarried couple want to have a kid, I don't really have a problem as long as they are going to raise the kid together. What I do think is a serious problem is multiple kids with multiple partners. That is never good.

I read above that you don't hear much about rich athletes as dead beat Dads. That is simply not the case. You can read all the time about celebs with multiple out of wed lock kids being pulled into court. They don't always stay rich. See Bobby Brown.

When Rays last contract was being negotiated I read about him needing a big score because of the large family. He had lost much of his income to Lawyers. Well, it might sound harsh, but I don't really care about the size of his family when it comes to his contract. He should get paid for what he does on a football field.

[festivus]

I also have a minor in Psychology, and both of your point of views are are common, although misguided, and most often had by well to do (wealthy/ republicans) that last part is my opinion. Again, we are not writing about society, this thread is about Brady and other pro players. So none of your points are valid!

I think at various points during the off season we should select candidates for, then nominate, then vote for the absolute most moronic, clueless, offensive, goofy post for the entire year.

Let's start now. :)

[BertJonesMyHero]

#1, I lump celebs in with athletes cause athletes are celebs. #2, there are a million I could have named. Brown just happened to pop into my head.lol I could named Willis who is being sued by 3 woman.

A year or 2 back SI did an in depth investigation and story on this very topic. Look it up. Woman follow NBA players around from city to City trying to get pregnant on purpose. Then they sue. Just ask Magic what he thinks of that life style.

[crazyraven]

Maybe some are speaking out because of their religous beliefs and that's unfortunate that people will judge others because of those beliefs. I have a feeling Tom Brady is doing what's right for himself and for his familes. if we hear that he is a two time bum then we can start busting his chops, until then let take a deep breath and relax...we are talking about an upstanding citzen.

[ClericBlackDave]

People are poor because they behave poorly, they do not behave poorly because they are poor.


That is your opinion, and not a truth. it would be better if you would state it as such.


There are many theories as to why poverty exists; a very conservative viewpoint points to individual accountability, as you did above.


While that may be true in *some* cases, that is a gross overgeneralization, and a huge overstatement. There are also many structural causes of poverty which many European and Asian nations have successfully combatted with effective policies. Until the US even tries such methods, claiming the source of all poverty to be based on a "culture of poverty" or certain "sins of the poor" is ignorant at best.


Read James Morone's "Hellfire Nation" for a great read and a good account of how America and Americans try to use "us v. them" type of mentalities to justify behavior towards groups including poor people, immigrants, african americans, homosexuals, women, etc


As for Tom Brady, he's got two attractive, RICH women pregnant. What the problem here?


Those kids will be provided for.


Anything other worries than that, and you're really getting into the guy's private life.

[BertJonesMyHero]

<<< There are also many structural causes of poverty which many European and Asian nations have successfully combatted with effective policies. Until the US even tries such methods, claiming the source of all poverty to be based on a "culture of poverty" or certain "sins of the poor" is ignorant at best.

Are you trying to say Europe and Asia deal with poverty better then the United States? If so, what policies are you referring to? Because I don't think it's an accurate statement. Have you seen the recent unemployment figures for Europe lately? Just last year, France for example had massive riots in their projects.

As for Brady- Being rich doesn't let him off the hook. It's that kind of attitude that makes sports figures think they can get away with murder. If you or someone close to you got 2 different women pregnant at the same time, I'm pretty sure you might have a small problem with it.

It is the 'at same time' thing that makes this look bad.

[Greg]

I also have a minor in Psychology, and both of your point of views are are common, although misguided, and most often had by well to do (wealthy/ republicans) that last part is my opinion. Again, we are not writing about society, this thread is about Brady and other pro players. So none of your points are valid!
Really, so dispel my points. I am not wealthy and I am a Libertarian.

The facts are, kids who are raised without a father in the house are more likely to have the problems I have listed and more. Your minor in psychology isn't challenging that fact with real statistics.



People are poor because they behave poorly, they do not behave poorly because they are poor.

That is your opinion, and not a truth. it would be better if you would state it as such.
No, it's the truth. The Economist, hardly a right-wing publication, did a study and found the following in regard to poverty.
99.5% of the people in poverty who:
a. graduate high school
b. get a job and keep it
c. get married and stay married
will get out of poverty. 199 out of 200. That's a pretty important statistic. If you are in poverty and make these good choices and avoid the opposing poor choices (not getting a job, dropping out, having children out of wedlock) you are almost guaranteed to get out of poverty. Hence, by not behaving poorly you will no longer be poor. By behaving poorly and not doing these simple things you will be poor.

Poor choices cause poverty, not the other way around. If you get your free education, get ANY job and keep it until you find a better one, and get married and stay married. These aren't difficult things, they are simply good choices.


There are many theories as to why poverty exists ...
That's not a theory, those are facts. Make good choices, get out of poverty 99.5% of the time.


Read James Morone's "Hellfire Nation" for a great read and a good account of how America and Americans try to use "us v. them" type of mentalities to justify behavior towards groups including poor people, immigrants, african americans, homosexuals, women, etc
That has absolutely no bearing at all here. I am not trying to justify any behavior. You are, you are trying to justify the poor choices that keep people in poverty. You know, if you made these people aware of these simple things perhaps they might actually employ good choices. Instead, we get the hand-wringing excuse makers and Jesse Jackson race baiters in that tell these poor folks they can't possibly get out. Well, if you told me that long enough I would probably give up and smoke dope all day too.

And those statistics, they apply to whites, blacks, whoever, just the same. There is absolutely no race component to it, whites who drop out, have children out of wedlock and/or don't get steady work are just as likely to get into or remain in poverty. Bringing race into it only causes confusion and is a race hustler tactic.

The problem with rich people behaving like this is that they are role models for the masses who lap up this nonsense on E!, Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition, etc. XYZ is pumping out kids out of wedlock so it must be fine.

Our culture is flying down the shitter.

And crazyraven, it has nothing to do with my religion. If you aren't religious and believe taboos come from men and not God, fine, these taboos were still set up by men for a reason. You don't think they wanted to bag every broad they could without impunity? Well, they did, but they married all the women they had children with and were fathers to those children because they discovered thousands of years ago that in fact this was the best way to raise them.

You can deny that all you want for benefit of your next conquest and orgasm, but it doesn't change the facts. Children without fathers are a bane to society.


As for Tom Brady, he's got two attractive, RICH women pregnant. What the problem here?

Those kids will be provided for.
They'll be provided for monetarily. But without the daily influence of a man in the household they will be more likely to become drug addicts, criminals, die young, get STDs, have children as teenagers, etc.

http://www.children-ourinvestment.org/T&TStats-ChildrenWithoutFathers.html

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)

70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.

[Greg]

http://www.fathers.com/research/consequences.html

http://www.fathers.com/help/importance.html

http://www.unicef.org/pon96/inabsent.htm
Check out those stats, somebody mentioned Europe. They are a bit better about being fathers in the home than Americans are.

Shall I go on? How many links do you want? Oh, and also note, it doesn't say it only applies to poor kids or wealthy kids are exempt.

[LBoogy]

Greg is absolutely correct. I don't think he needs any help here.

[camdenyard]

Greg knows what he is talking about. He talks like a parent who knows about responsibility, not a man-child who thinks he can screw anyone he wants and if there is an "oops" pull out a checkbook and make it go away at worst or at best get away with it.

He's also right that our culture is going down the shitter. We need more of the 1950s values in this country.

[crazyraven]

You can deny that all you want for benefit of your next conquest and orgasm, but it doesn't change the facts. Children without fathers are a bane to society.

This is the second mention of orgasm toward me. Honestly I haven;t conveyed anything about my jiz? Why do you keep talking about it? WTF? I dont understand. I have been talking about Tom Brady Being a father and supporting the children He has created and your talking about my conquests and love milk. :grbac:

[ClericBlackDave]

Are you trying to say Europe and Asia deal with poverty better then the United States? If so, what policies are you referring to? Because I don't think it's an accurate statement. Have you seen the recent unemployment figures for Europe lately?


America is by far the wealthiest nation in the world at this point, yet our life expectancy for males is 30th of industrialized nations. Thats what I'm talking about; when you go at issues like poverty the are structural factors that the United States doesn't try to deal with because of its liberal (that's small "L" liberal, not liberal as its used in the media) founding and culture.


Structural factors like lack of affordable housing, lack of healthcare, globalization and the destruction of American industry, all contribute to poverty; and yes, I believe many asian and european nations have dealt better with such issues and in THOSE nations, you have a stronger argument for individual accountability.


I'm not writing off anyone's libertarian point of views. I'm a political science graduate student; my roomate is a libertarian, but even he knows better than to state libertarian/conservative viewpoints as "fact". Its a point of view that can be suported, but on the whole it isn't "fact". There is nothing more frustrating than a liberal, libertarian, or conservative that tries to use a viewpoint as fact.


Vis a Vis the economist, he and I are subscribed to that, and if you claim it has no slant . . . haha i'll just politely say BS. Being that I do political science for a living, lets just say almost all studies, think-tanks, etc have a slant. Objective fact in that sense is always a myth. look at who funds research, what were the research parameters, where is there selection bias on the data, is someone fudging the data by ignoring heteroskedaticity or by ignoring relevant variables . . . i could go on


In terms of Tom Brady, how much of a father he is or will be will determine how his kids turn out. Thats something, I think, that can be very independent of marriage as it currently exists as an institution.


There are people right now who are married and in holy matrimony who are terrible fathers and terrible parents. And there are people who aren't married who play better roles as father figures than some men who are married.


If you have a productive marriage and was a good parent, more power to you. My parents, 66 and 62, are still married and I attribute that to how i turned out; but it was more they way they parented than the mere fact that they are together and was positive.


Thing is, Greg, I respect your opinions and agree that most families are better off when the mother and father are man and wife, etc


HOWEVER, stating that as a fact is an overstatement that people are prone to. There are families that would be better off if the parents were divorced rather than doing a half assed job parenting because they spend most of their energies trying not to kill their mate.


In terms for a longing to go back to the society and culture of the 1940's or in general of an early american age, a good read is Alan Ehrenhalt's "Lost City"; he tries to make such an argument, but the problem with that are apparent.


In any case, stating a given viewpoint as fact because a given journal / magazine / article supports it . . . forgive me if I'm skeptical.


Making an argument about pro-athletes doing less than stellar jobs as parents . . . thats an argument worth making. So long as you don't state your argument as "fact"


-CBD

[Greg]

America is by far the wealthiest nation in the world at this point, yet our life expectancy for males is 30th of industrialized nations.
Dude, LOOK AT THE STATISTICS FOR THESE COUNTRIES! These countries have a much higher rate of the father being in the home. You have done nothing but confirm that the breakup of the nuclear family correlates very closely to social problems.

crazyraven, you make it abundantly clear that you put your own self-interests and pleasures above the best interests of others and our society. You think it is perfectly fine to drive down the road with ice flying off your car and hitting others and you think it is perfectly fine to screw every woman you can and if a baby results a monthly check will take care of it, if you are caught anyway. My talking about you putting your orgasm ahead of all other things is a simple summation of that. You are more interested in your own pleasure than you are our society and those around you. You are quite simply, an extremely selfish person.


HOWEVER, stating that as a fact is an overstatement that people are prone to. There are families that would be better off if the parents were divorced rather than doing a half assed job parenting because they spend most of their energies trying not to kill their mate.
While there are certainly exceptions to the rule such as an abusive father who shows little to no love, the best thing is a loving, encouraging, strong father in the home. You are trying to refute my case, backed up with statistics and facts with exceptions.

And while The Economist does have a fiscally conservative bent, socially they are quite liberal. That doesn't change the facts. Who do you know that is in poverty who has graduated high school, always had a job even if it were for minimum wage and avoided having children out of wedlock? My guess is nobody. Again, it is simple, make very simple and easily attainable choices and poverty can be overcome. And again, the reason this doesn't happen very often is because for some reason people dismiss this away and instead tell people in poverty it isn't their fault and then they excuse their poor choices as a result of being in poverty when the relationship actually goes the other way. You are harming people in poverty by denying this simple fact and keeping it from them.


Come on Greg.....you a liberal....not by reading your viewpoints. I guess the people of New Orleans had all the help they needed from the Gov and should have just left earlier.....
I said I was a Libertarian, not a liberal. There is a HUGE difference. And the government did fail the people in New Orleans, particularly the city government who let hundreds of business get ruined in the flood that could have been used to get those people out.

If you are trying to get me to defend government and claim it is efficient you are barking up the wrong tree. Government sucks, that's why we need a lot less of it.

[festivus]

> If you are trying to get me to defend government and claim it is
> efficient you are barking up the wrong tree. Government sucks,
> that's why we need a lot less of it.

Yup, a libertarian through and through. Anyone who gets those two words mixed up feel free to look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian)and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal) and educate yourself. The single most fundamental difference, and Greg is free to disagree if I'm wrong, being the role of government.

Pretty much everything Greg has written has 'libertarian' all over it. No surprise he cites The Economist, which is an excellent magazine that might particularly appeal to someone with those stripes.

:watching:

[Greg]

Libertarians are socially liberal and economically conservative, always stressing the least amount of government possible. Or in the words of Thomas Jefferson "The government that governs best, governs least." I always laughed my ass off when Clinton would compare himself to Jefferson. And Bush blows as well, I hold both parties in contempt.

I actually first read those statistics in a book called The Great Reckoning. They cited The Economist during a chapter on the causes of poverty.

[festivus]

And Bush blows as well, I hold both parties in contempt.

Yup. Libertarians have not had a President they liked in a loooong time. New Presidents come in with their own agendas and normally have to add infrastructure (i.e., more government) to move on them, and George W. is no exception. Perhaps you liked Reagan? I'm not sure he actually *shrank* government, though. If not, how far back do you have to go? Lyndon Johnson, JFK, Nixon, Carter all expanded government's role in our day to day lives.

Normally I'd feel guilty about thread drift, but in this case. . . :whistling:

[Greg]

LOL, probably pre-Lincoln. At least when Jefferson exceeded what he considered Constitutional power when buying the Lousiana Territory he wrestled with it for a while. I liked Reagan, if he had been elected in 2000 with a Republican Congress we actually might have seen some action. He was limited by a very hostile Congress.

JFK was better than either Bush.

[festivus]

So can we agree that as long as Brady supports his kids he is still a good guy

We can (and probably should) agree to disagree, and leave it at that. :)

[crazyraven]

crazyraven, you make it abundantly clear that you put your own self-interests and pleasures above the best interests of others and our society. You think it is perfectly fine to drive down the road with ice flying off your car and hitting others and you think it is perfectly fine to screw every woman you can and if a baby results a monthly check will take care of it, if you are caught anyway. My talking about you putting your orgasm ahead of all other things is a simple summation of that. You are more interested in your own pleasure than you are our society and those around you. You are quite simply, an extremely selfish person.

Just because i dont give a rats ass about removing snow from the roof of my car because I have other things to do and I dont want to waste time doesnt mean that you can automatically make the assumtion that Crazyraven is out to screw every woman. Sure I like the way it feels without a rubber but you aint gonna catch me with a bunch of kids from different woman. Uh-uh. :eek:
I do take the time to avoid a potential accident.

[highwater]

Just because i dont give a rats ass about removing snow from the roof of my car because I have other things to do and I dont want to waste time ... (snip) ... I do take the time to avoid a potential accident.

Does anyone else find that funny (in a pitiful sort of way, of course)?

[Losac]

Does anyone else find that funny (in a pitiful sort of way, of course)?
Yeah, I caught that. Not sure if he was trying to be ironic, or if he really is that stupid.

[Greg]

I'll let his comments as they present themselves stand.

As for Brady, I would also prefer to agree to disagree. I don't think fathering multiple children out of wedlock is something that can be dismissed out of hand.

[purplepoe]

Just because i dont give a rats ass about removing snow from the roof of my car because I have other things to do and I dont want to waste time

So let me get this straight.

You don't give a rats ass about removing snow/ice from the roof of your car knowing that it can cause not only damage to other cars but injuries and death?

I've read your posts on this and Im still dumbfounded.

Just to be clear, you stick by your statement above?

PP

[crazyraven]

So let me get this straight.

You don't give a rats ass about removing snow/ice from the roof of your car knowing that it can cause not only damage to other cars but injuries and death?
Compared to fathering two babies from two different women? You got that right.

[Ravens0587]

:insane:

[purplepoe]

Compared to fathering two babies from two different women? You got that right.

No, not compared with fathering 2 babies with 2 women.

Again, is it your stance that you don't give a rats' ass about clearing ice/snow off your roof?

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

Greg:


All I'm saying is that I'm a graduate student in Political Science. PLEASE don't try to state your or a group political opinion or theory as FACT


I live with a libertarian (He's French), and I'm exposed to various political opinion on a day to day basis as i interact with professors, students, grade papers, attend faculty events, etc.


So its not as though I'm writing off your libertarian view. But admit that your views have a slant, and PLEASE don't state them as fact.


And please don't scream LOOK AT THE STATISTICS because lots of numbers are gotten from lots of places with lots of possibly biassed methods.


For a good read, see what Deborah Stone has to say about numbers in her book "Policy Paradox"


-CBD

[Greg]

No, he doesn't. He has made it abundantly clear that he thinks the few minutes it takes to make others safer isn't worth it. He is the epitome of the "me-first" attitude that is pervading this country and has our culture on a rocket sled into a slag heap of dung.


All I'm saying is that I'm a graduate student in Political Science. PLEASE don't try to state your or a group political opinion or theory as FACT
Dave, it is not my OPINION that 199 out of 200 people in poverty who don't have children out of wedlock, get ANY kind of job and graduate high school will get out of poverty. That is a fact. And if you venture back over this thread only one poster has continually posted facts to SUPPORT his opinion and you are reading his take right now.

FACT, poverty can be overcome by those in it by doing 3 simple things.
OPINION, based on the above fact, poverty is caused by people making poor choices.

If you care to actually debate that point and quit trying to impress with me with your vast exposure to various opinions, positions and people then do it.

[crazyraven]

Again, is it your stance that you don't give a rats' ass about clearing ice/snow off your roof?
If we are talking about a few inches I dont give a shit especially if it isnt packed. I have a carport so for the most part I dont have to worry about it. However if Im at work and some flakes fall on the roof while its snowing when Im there normally I'll just clear a window or two, let the deforster get the back window then Im on my way. If that make me the "He is the epitome of the "me-first" attitude" then I'm guilty as charged. You guys are over the top with this , you make it sound like I was driving drunk and shit.

[Greg]

Oh please, you are now completely shifting the argument. The discussion you blew off before regarded ice sheets flying off of cars and busting them up, something you blamed on the victims.

An inch of puffy snow that will blow off in the same manner in which it fell is immaterial and not what the discussion was about and you know it. We are talking about ice that is on roofs of vehicles and trailers that comes off in huge, hard, rock-like chunks.

[highwater]

This has been a fascinating thread for getting to know some people's credentials -- Raven Nurse has a minor in Psychology, CBD is a graduate student in Political Science and lives with a French Libertarian, and crazyraven is a certified moron who doesn't have the common sense to clear ice off the roof of his car.

Pretty soon, we'll be posting our resumes on this thread.

[ClericBlackDave]

That is a fact.


You can't help yourself. That is the problem with political diehards, and why these discussions usually have about 0% usefulness outside the academic sphere.


Please produce said data that is "fact". Then please explain to me how the data was collected, the "N" size (if you don't know what that means, then there isn't a point to my saying it).


Then also tell me who commisioned the study to have this data collected, where the funding came from, and what the parameters were for this data (if it exists)


Oh yeah and also explain the research design and why they probably "decided" to leave out several other relevant variables. Did they control for heteroskedaticity? Did the data have any sort of selection bias? For that matter, was it "fudged" by doing any interesting permeutations to the data?


Do all of that w/o there being a shread of bias, and then maybe, MAYBE you can state it as fact.


But please don't tell me because you and the economist said so, its fact. :rolling: If you think thats true, I think you should invest a few G to take a few basic classes in politics and political science

[Bez513]

Oh please, you are now completely shifting the argument. The discussion you blew off before regarded ice sheets flying off of cars and busting them up, something you blamed on the victims.

An inch of puffy snow that will blow off in the same manner in which it fell is immaterial and not what the discussion was about and you know it. We are talking about ice that is on roofs of vehicles and trailers that comes off in huge, hard, rock-like chunks.

Greg...there is no sense arguing with this moron.

[highwater]

Oh yeah and also explain the research design and why they probably "decided" to leave out several other relevant variables. Did they control for heteroskedaticity?

Oh yeah, we have a grad student in the room. You're never as smart as when you're a college student. Question methodology and never admit you just might be wrong.

Explain why they "probably decided to leave out several other relevant variables" -- wow, strong arguement there.

[camdenyard]

You can't help yourself. That is the problem with political diehards, and why these discussions usually have about 0% usefulness outside the academic sphere.


Please produce said data that is "fact". Then please explain to me how the data was collected, the "N" size (if you don't know what that means, then there isn't a point to my saying it).


Then also tell me who commisioned the study to have this data collected, where the funding came from, and what the parameters were for this data (if it exists)


Oh yeah and also explain the research design and why they probably "decided" to leave out several other relevant variables. Did they control for heteroskedaticity? Did the data have any sort of selection bias? For that matter, was it "fudged" by doing any interesting permeutations to the data?


Do all of that w/o there being a shread of bias, and then maybe, MAYBE you can state it as fact.


But please don't tell me because you and the economist said so, its fact. :rolling: If you think thats true, I think you should invest a few G to take a few basic classes in politics and political science


I know guys who can do Calculus in their sleep, but have a hard time with their multiplication tables.

I know at least one person who aced her JD but couldn't reason her way out of a wet paper bag.

Common sense, dude. Look around you. I don't need to commission a study to see what's obvious. If you do, I wonder about you. Children who don't have a strong two-parent influence are behind the eight ball and are allowed to make bad decisions.

[Greg]

Please produce said data that is "fact". Then please explain to me how the data was collected, the "N" size (if you don't know what that means, then there isn't a point to my saying it).
How about this, all of the information you want was printed in The Economist on April 25, 1987. You go look it up for yourself.

You have posted exactly ZERO facts, studies, ANYTHING to back up your points then you have the nerve to attack somebody who actually brings it to the discussion? Your own bias in denying what you don't agree with is more in play than those who conducted the study.

Again, here is a challenge for you. HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW WHO ARE IN POVERTY WHO:
1. Have worked steadily, even at minimum wage, since leaving school
2. Graduated High School
3. Avoided having children out of wedlock or better, got married and stayed married

My guess is ZERO, because the people who make those minimal good choices and stay or go into poverty DO NOT EXIST.

And you know something, impoverished people are less to blame than excuse makers like you who cloud the truth from them. I could try and tell them but I would get dismissed out of hand by them just as you have done to me because the likes of you have convinced them they have no hope.

AGAIN, HOW MANY PEOPLE MEET THE CRITERIA I NOTED DO YOU KNOW?

Oh, and again, I am the product of a broken home and I also got married young and got divorced. I am not standing on some moral high ground and looking down my nose at people who have made poor choices. I have lived it as a child and an adult, though thankfully my first marriage produced no kids. I am not morally superior to anybody, I just don't deny the obvious.

[ClericBlackDave]

Oh, and again, I am the product of a broken home and I also got married young and got divorced. I am not standing on some moral high ground and looking down my nose at people who have made poor choices. I have lived it as a child and an adult, though thankfully my first marriage produced no kids. I am not morally superior to anybody


Good to see you can admit you're not perfect. No one is.


That said, that still doesn't make a study published in the economist "fact". Being that its my job to make and review such studies, there is a lot that goes into such numbers or statistics thats hardly "factual".


Because a study in the economist publishes it as "fact", does make it so.


For Highwater or someone arguing that I have no argument, here's just a snipet of the problem with such studies.

1) How did they contact and track poor people? And at what intervals? If they tracked poor people using census data, or relied on poor people who have phones or addresses, then there is a large selection bias to this study: it totally overlooks those who are homeless, who lack phones, people without SS #'s, people who generally don't show up on census data and represent a larger problem than those who are poor "on the fringes." These are people who are so poor, you can't contact them or track them for significant periods of time. Any consideration of poor people and their mental/psychological health? I dont think so.


2) Who commissioned this study? All studies are funded. Its likely that such a study would be commisioned by a libertarian or conservative think tank or organization so that people like Greg, no offense, can have this "fact" to throw around on message boards and in wine and cheese discussions. Where does the number 199 out of 200 come from? Sounds like a convenient number to me . . . a number that has political meaning.


By all means, think that all numbers from studies are "factual" and cannot be argued with. But there isn't a statistic out there that doesn't have a political meaning, slant, or origin.


Again, read Deborah Stone's "Policy Paradox" for a good read about the nature of numbers in politics before you throw said numbers around as "fact"


Thing is, I read the economist. I have an issue right in front of me talking about fixing the Bush Presidency. I'm not against opening my mind.


But your average person out there like Greg is no longer digesting new informations or facts. All he is doing is absorbing facts that are compatible with his specific world view.


If your world view is "right" or "factual" why doesn't everyone agree? Why do we have politics, and voting, and conflict?


Let me guess; everyone besides you is an idiot.

[Greg]

Again Dave, how many people in poverty do you know who have done these three things?

Forget about there being some kind of fucking intent on regard to who did the study or why. Again...

CAN YOU NAME ONE PERSON WHO HAS DONE THE THREE THINGS NOTED AND IS IN POVERTY?


Where does the number 199 out of 200 come from? Sounds like a convenient number to me . . . a number that has political meaning.
Look, they studied people in poverty and noted the differences between those who got out and those who did not. Those who got out did the 3 things I noted, those who did not made the poorer choices.


If your world view is "right" or "factual" why doesn't everyone agree?
LOL, well, because people can interpret data differently in some cases. But reasonable people can at least acknowledge the data. You keep dismissing it because it doesn't fit with your view and I have on a number of occasions invited you to cite one example that contradicts it. I mean come on, even I admit 1 out of every 200 people in poverty who do these three things will still be in poverty. You must think that number is higher, so list one name. Hell, find the 1 person in 200 I admit still failed.


But your average person out there like Greg is no longer digesting new informations or facts. All he is doing is absorbing facts that are compatible with his specific world view.
This coming from the guy who refuses to acknowledge the data. Okay, tell me, WHAT NEW INFORMATION OR FACT AM I NOT ABSORBING? You have posted ZERO facts or data. And you have no idea what information I absorb or don't. Here's something we all observe but I guess can't call fact without the Cleric's blessing, you have a unique ability to stand there with your fingers in your ears screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" while accusing me of it.

[festivus]

Boys, boys. :)

Greg gave his opinion, a reasonable one, and gave his reasons for it. Cleric Black Dave was (for once, no offense) arguing rationally, with a *different* opinion, and gave *his* reasons for it. He cited no data, but gave his reason for not citing data, and cited supposed learned treatises instead. So be it.

A fine debate in good faith, if not up to ivory tower standards, so much the better in my humble opinion.

Really, it's time to agree to disagree. . .

Greg, go back to your corner contemplating your superior awesomeness, and CBD, go back to your corner contemplating political theory, which was some of my favorite material when I was an undergrad myself.

:toast: and :hug:

[Greg]

How did they contract and track poor people? If they tracked poor people using census data, or relied on poor people who have phones or addresses, then there is a large selection bias to this study: it totally overlooks those who are homeless, who lack phones, people without SS #'s, people who generally don't show up on census data and represent a larger problem than those who are poor "on the fringes."
Sorry for the extra post but there is so much ... uh ... well ... that you miss some the first time through.

DUDE, WHEN STUDYING PEOPLE WHO GOT JOBS, STAYED IN SCHOOL UNTIL GRADUATION FROM HIGH SCHOOL AND GOT MARRIED AND STAY MARRIED HOW MANY DO YOU THINK ARE HOMELESS OR DON'T HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS?

Out of all the people in poverty who did these three things, how many are likely to be in the group you note? MORE THAN 1 IN 200? LOL...dude, you are at least funny.

[Greg]

festivus, I apologize for my enthusiasm but I have participated in this debate numerous times. In all of these debates my opponents to date have yet to find the 1 in 200 I admit exists. I just find it frustrating.

There is a simple formula for getting out of poverty that when denied only hurts those in poverty.
GO TO WORK, TAKING ANY JOB!
DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK!
FINISH HIGH SCHOOL!

It works. And all of the spinning these cats can manage doesn't change that.

[festivus]

No need to apologize. My 2c is that if you *are* making a mistake, it is oversimplifying, and if CBD is making a mistake, it is undersimplifying. Not that I care to debate it, it's just that's my personal observation.

Now take the number of times you've had this debate, add one, and inhale. ;)

[Greg]

That's the thing though, it is simple. Sure, there are hundreds of other things that can be talked about like drug abuse or child abuse or whatever. But those are all things that cause a person to not do the 3 things OR are things they get into because they have no hope. If people knew that finishing HS, getting out into the workforce and avoiding the staggering bills an illegitimate child incur they might be a lot more likely to do them.

[festivus]

That's the thing though, it is simple.

Oh, you won't trick me into this debate, thank you very much. Everyone's points have been made, and readers of this lengthy thread have seen the arguments. I was following along contentedly myself, until the repetition set in.

It crept from :watching: to :brickwall: as debates can sometimes do.

[ravensfan1996]

I didnt want to read through 5 pages of posts, but seems like you are talking about poverty, out of work, uneducated deadbeats??? OH I get it, its a Steelers fan thread!

Im not really ino political discussions, i fall more in line with the average american.....all i want to know is, who else did tom brady knock up?? (thats the american way, we dont care about solving world issues we just want our american idol and entertainment tonight!)

Speaking of which did anyone else find the new report of the Iranians being upset about the "300" movie, saying it shows iranians in a bad light??? They are assuming the american public knows that persians come from persia, and persia is where modern day iran is. We aren that smart!

[Greg]

Damn.

LOL, you are a rare one. I enjoy debates, and though it isn't the case this time, I occassionally will even debate the side of an argument I don't agree with. Despite the assumption that I don't look at all sides of an argument I actually do. I can usually argue both sides equally well.

[BertJonesMyHero]

This has been a fascinating thread for getting to know some people's credentials -- Raven Nurse has a minor in Psychology, CBD is a graduate student in Political Science and lives with a French Libertarian, and crazyraven is a certified moron who doesn't have the common sense to clear ice off the roof of his car.

Pretty soon, we'll be posting our resumes on this thread.

lol
I say we all gang up together, flog Dave's roomie, and ship his butt back to France.

Just sayin. Would that be so wrong?

[Ravens0587]

Whats up with peoples ratings? From one day to another they jump from one green dot to about 10 on some people

[BertJonesMyHero]

I hate ratings. Always have. I always vote to get rid of them. Say something someone doesn't like, and the whack you. And as was pointed out, they don't always work correctly anyway.

But that is up to the big boss. I don't even know how to work the feature.

[ClericBlackDave]

CAN YOU NAME ONE PERSON WHO HAS DONE THE THREE THINGS NOTED AND IS IN POVERTY?


Selection Bias. You wouldn't know one because you yourself are successful and probably middle class to upper middle class.


If you've worked with people at homeless shelters, which I bet you haven't, you would know that lots of people fall on hard times regardless of education status because of being laid off, because of mental health problems, because of medical conditions and the medical bills that may come with that.


A good example is a homeless man that my uncle encountered that was an upstanding individual; college schooled, etc etc worked at a Jewlry Store. Store got robbed and he was hit with a shotgun blast to the head.


In a coma for a few weeks, come out and they're bassically waitinf for the pieces of his fractured skull to naturally float out of his brain along with shotgun pellets.


Long story short, he's disfigured, has a plate over the front of his head, had mental problems from said brain damage and is homeless.


People fall on hard times for a number of reasons. they are not all to be blamed on the individual.


As a libertarian, I would expect you to think so though. And you're living up to the billing. My roomate thinks the same way, BUT he doesn't state the opinions as fact, or pretend that studies publishes in the Economist are fact. Why? Because he's trained to understand that its not that black or white.


If it was "simple" then we wouldn't have politics, or be having this discussion. Period.

[purplepoe]

Selection Bias. You wouldn't know one because you yourself are successful and probably middle class to upper middle class.


If you've worked with people at homeless shelters, which I bet you haven't, you would know that lots of people fall on hard times regardless of education status because of being laid off, because of mental health problems, because of medical conditions and the medical bills that may come with that.


A good example is a homeless man that my uncle encountered that was an upstanding individual; college schooled, etc etc worked at a Jewlry Store. Store got robbed and he was hit with a shotgun blast to the head.


In a coma for a few weeks, come out and they're bassically waitinf for the pieces of his fractured skull to naturally float out of his brain along with shotgun pellets.


Long story short, he's disfigured, has a plate over the front of his head, had mental problems from said brain damage and is homeless.


People fall on hard times for a number of reasons. they are not all to be blamed on the individual.


As a libertarian, I would expect you to think so though. And you're living up to the billing. My roomate thinks the same way, BUT he doesn't state the opinions as fact, or pretend that studies publishes in the Economist are fact. Why? Because he's trained to understand that its not that black or white.


If it was "simple" then we wouldn't have politics, or be having this discussion. Period.


Ummm, that is quite an extreme example isn't it Dave?

Sure, there are circumstances that occur that are out of certain individuals control. That happens in all walks of life. However, it's certianly not the norm.

Nevermind the real world. We'll just pretend that everything happens in a classroom or a textbook.

I love how somebody else can't know anything because they are middle or upper class. But since you have a poly sci degree, you do?

Face it Dave, you want to make excuses for other people's bad choices. And Greg is dead on when saying that people who do that are worse than people making the bad choices.

Just take a walk through the city of Baltimore. You don't need a degree to see how the lack of father's in the lives of children is destroying the fabric of the city.

All of your jargon and rhetoric just clouds reality. And that, in turn, is leading us further down the wrong path.

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

PurplePoe:


The reality is people can fall on hard times, regardless of education or not having kids out of wedlock, etc.


People who say, are the only child of their parents, and who's parents die, and have little to no kinship network left only need to be laid off once, have one serious disease or accident, one mental health breakdown, or one generally unlucky event to fall on hard times.


People who are middle class to upper class like Greg, maybe you PP, whoever, will try to put this on the "sins" or mistakes of the poor.


But don't get it twisted, people fall on hard times and its often not their fault.


Studies like the one Greg are citing usually have many evident selection biases as to get a result which the funder of the study would like.


If you don't understand what selection bias is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


In any case, people like Greg who state studies and statistics as "facts" are usually people who dont' like to recognize that studies are often political and baised, and people who just need to take a few simple social science statistic classes to realize that data can be made to look like what the funders want.


People fall on hard times, and many times, its not their fault. They don't need to get shit on on a message board by people who don't know and don't care about them, but share a certain political point of view and want to think the Economist is hard "fact"


How about this: instead of relying on the economist, go down to your local homeless shelter. Do some community service: a large enough "N" size so that this little experiment has statistical significance.


Ask you average homeless joe who you're serving soup how he/she got there. You'd be suprised.


-CBD

[purplepoe]

PurplePoe:


The reality is people can fall on hard times, regardless of education or not having kids out of wedlock, etc.


People who say, are the only child of their parents, and who's parents die, and have little to no kinship network left only need to be laid off once, have one serious disease or accident, one mental health breakdown, or one generally unlucky event to fall on hard times.


People who are middle class to upper class like Greg, maybe you PP, whoever, will try to put this on the "sins" or mistakes of the poor.


But don't get it twisted, people fall on hard times and its often not their fault.


Studies like the one Greg are citing usually have many evident selection biases as to get a result which the funder of the study would like.


If you don't understand what selection bias is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


In any case, people like Greg who state studies and statistics as "facts" are usually people who dont' like to recognize that studies are often political and baised, and people who just need to take a few simple social science statistic classes to realize that data can be made to look like what the funders want.


People fall on hard times, and many times, its not their fault. They don't need to get shit on on a message board by people who don't know and don't care about them, but share a certain political point of view and want to think the Economist is hard "fact"


How about this: instead of relying on the economist, go down to your local homeless shelter. Do some community service: a large enough "N" size so that this little experiment has statistical significance.


Ask you average homeless joe who you're serving soup how he/she got there. You'd be suprised.


-CBD

You know what's funny Dave?

You repeatedly make generalizations about anyone in middle or upper class. How they can't understand the topic at hand.

Do you not see the complete and utter contradiction in that?

You sound like a professor. I went to college and have a degree as well Dave. I remember listening to professors spew and spew thinking they were presenting a fair and balanced point of view.

Then I went into the the real world and realized it was 99% complete and utter biased bullshit.

Im not "upper" class Dave. And I've volunteered at homeless shelters on many more occasions than you might think.

And yes, there are stories that are sad and that I have sympathy for.

HOWEVER, those stories and situations are dwarfed by the situations caused by poor decisions.

And you know what? MANY of those people making poor decisions come from broken homes with no father in the picture.

Nobody is saying people can't fall on hard times Dave. I have friends who grew up wealthy with both parents are are completely screwed up.

What some of us are saying is that a good, solid home with both parents significantly helps and child become a successful member of society.

It's not selection bias. It's not anything but reality.

Check it out.

PP

[Rochardrik]

Greg knows what he is talking about. He talks like a parent who knows about responsibility, not a man-child who thinks he can screw anyone he wants and if there is an "oops" pull out a checkbook and make it go away at worst or at best get away with it.

He's also right that our culture is going down the shitter. We need more of the 1950s values in this country.
The 50's "values" are waaaaay overrated, and hardly applicable to now. What, you want an America where midle class, and wealth are reserved for wasps? Championing the ways of the '50's is advocating racism.:bag: You cannot seperate the two! It's impossible!

[Rochardrik]

I nominate this thread and all its posts as the WORST ever posted on this board

[camdenyard]

This was never a discussion about race. Maybe you should read the thread before condemning it.

If you have a racial axe to grind, perhaps you should start your own thread.

[Rochardrik]

This was never a discussion about race. Maybe you should read the thread before condemning it.

If you have a racial axe to grind, perhaps you should start your own thread.

I am responding directly to your words, I don't have an axe to grind. What I said is true. 50's values WERE all about white middle class. To invoke the "good ol' days" (which you didn't, specifically,) ... who were they good for? WASPS, only. These were NOT good Ol' days for blacks. I'm simply saying, those days were NOT very moral, when you consider the pain and injustice inflicted by those "morals"! The two cannot be seperated, and should NOT be something we hold up for a shining light!
As to the other post about this being the worst thread, and post, I was referring to the post, in this thread, someone said "we should be able to nominate the worst post.....", as they were arguing a post... It was my attempt at humor, since psychology majors, minors, and amateurs were trying to solve the world's social downfalls here.... on this pro football site... :rolleyes:

[darb72]

50's values WERE all about white middle class. To invoke the "good ol' days" (which you didn't, specifically,) ... who were they good for? WASPS, only. These were NOT good Ol' days for blacks. I'm simply saying, those days were NOT very moral, when you consider the pain and injustice inflicted by those "morals"! The two cannot be seperated, and should NOT be something we hold up for a shining light!
Sure you can. You can take the good and bad from anything.

Want to talk about a huge dividing point between the races? The War of Northern Aggression.
Slavery was one reason for the war, which we all agree is a bad thing.
States Rights was another reason for the war which, depending on your political leanings, is a good thing.
Slavery = Bad.
States Rights = Good.

[darb72]

But don't get it twisted, people fall on hard times and its often not their fault.
Often Dave? I'd go with occasionally not their fault.

You cited one example of bad luck leading to homelessness. Want me to go through the examples of people I know who are hovering right around the poverty line who have children, aren't married, and didn't go to college/graduate high school?

And yes Dave not graduating high school is a choice, as is having multiple children by multiple partners.


In any case, people like Greg who state studies and statistics as "facts" are usually people who dont' like to recognize that studies are often political and baised, and people who just need to take a few simple social science statistic classes to realize that data can be made to look like what the funders want.
While people who attempt to ignore those studies are often those people who can't provide any studies to validate their own stance.

Show me a study that says high school graduates are just as likely to be living at the poverty level as those who didn't graduate high school.

[festivus]

Darb, you restrained yourself from chiming in on this learned debate for so long, I am surprised you gave in. :)

[ClericBlackDave]

HOWEVER, those stories and situations are dwarfed by the situations caused by poor decisions.


Evidence, please.


Give me something other than your opinion to substantiate such a statement as "truth"


And please, don't throw an economist article at me, so I can point out who funded it, and their agenda. And the fact that how you collect, permeutate, and report data is an inherently political process.


I'm not invalidating anyone's opinions. But don't state opinion as "fact" or say "Dave, Greg is right". If everyone agreed with Greg, there wouldn't be politics, or two political parties, or multiple points of view


But honestly, I all of this is neither here nor there in terms of what this is really about.


When it comes down to it, people in America feel enough sense of entitlement to state their point of view as "fact". And its seemingly impossible to make them see it otherwise.


If you were like me and in the business of creating studies and statistics like Greg's little Economist article, you'd understand what goes into making a number or statistic and exactly why a number like "199 out of 200" wreaks of bullshit.

[purplepoe]

Evidence, please.


Give me something other than your opinion to substantiate such a statement as "truth"


And please, don't throw an economist article at me, so I can point out who funded it, and their agenda. And the fact that how you collect, permeutate, and report data is an inherently political process.


I'm not invalidating anyone's opinions. But don't state opinion as "fact" or say "Dave, Greg is right". If everyone agreed with Greg, there wouldn't be politics, or two political parties, or multiple points of view


But honestly, I all of this is neither here nor there in terms of what this is really about.


When it comes down to it, people in America feel enough sense of entitlement to state their point of view as "fact". And its seemingly impossible to make them see it otherwise.


If you were like me and in the business of creating studies and statistics like Greg's little Economist article, you'd understand what goes into making a number or statistic and exactly why a number like "199 out of 200" wreaks of bullshit.


Reality Dave.

That's the evidence.

You sit there with your degree and create studies to do exactly what? Try to debunk any study which provides data that you don't particularly agree with?

You're condescending tone is hilarious. "If you were like me.......".

Im NOT like you. I don't sit in a bubble and ignore what the hell is going on around me.

You're "evidence" was bringing up an extreme case where someone was shot in the head with a shotgun. I haven't seen anyone here say that person should be fine and not have serious issues.

I don't need a study that's approved by CBD to know that a case like that is not even close to the norm.

But keep spewing your rhetoric about skewed data, selection bias etc....

Meanwhile, alot of us will deal with reality while you scoff at the notion.

PP

[festivus]

a number like "199 out of 200" wreaks of bullshit.

I think you mean "reeks."

As I understand your point, Dave, you are saying that Greg's 199 out of 200 presents a couple of problems. You are *not* saying Greg's position is _wrong_ as (to borrow your language) a fact. You are instead pointing out what you see as flaws in the form of his argument, saying:

1. Calculating "199 out of 200" is not as simple as walking outside, looking for people pushing shopping carts around downtown, and asking 200 of them a series of questions. "Studies" can be, innocently or otherwise, bent, and indeed creating a true and complete study like what we hope the FDA does before approving drugs is exceedingly burdensome and we should not take it on faith that it was done by The Economist. After all, it hardly ever is.

2. Even *assuming* 199 out of 200 people in poverty have the four following criteria in common: 1. hold the same job 2. get a high school education 3. keep the same spouse 4. get out of poverty, even then it is not, strictly speaking, logically automatic that factors 1, 2, and 3 *cause* factor 4. What if, for instance, 599 out of 600 people in poverty who hold the same job over the same span get out of poverty? Does that mean of those holding a job, they should get divorced to increase their chances from 199/200 to 599/600? Or of the 199 out of 200 who get out of poverty, 40% know how to swim, but of the remaining 1 out of 200, only 5% know how to swim? Should people learn to swim? My point being, even if the *numbers* are "true" in some cosmic sense, we can order them in different ways depending on our desired outcome.

Dave, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point of your argument really has almost nothing to do with real issues of poverty, and more to do with statistics and the form of logic and debate.


Meanwhile, a lot of us will deal with reality while you scoff at the notion.
We live in our different realities. Dave isn't saying you are wrong, I don't think, he's just saying, it's not that simple. As often as I think he knows nothing about football ;), I admire him for sticking to his guns in this thread. Let's just try to stay away from repetition. . .

[Greg]

Long story short, he's disfigured, has a plate over the front of his head, had mental problems from said brain damage and is homeless.
Dude, this is a ridiculous example, if you are going to mix in people who have emotional and mental problems go ahead. I assume we were talking about the able bodied who decide that getting a job and keeping it and not having scads of out-of-wedlock children is not for them and then wonder why they are poor.

As for the 50s, yes there was racism but it would be possible to encourage nuclear families that are stable without invoking the racism of the times. I have no idea why anybody would think the two are tied at the hip. But let's look at the black family in the 1950s. A lot more fathers in the home, a lot less crime committed by and against them, a lot less children out of wedlock, etc. I can guarantee you this without looking at any data, blacks that aren't in poverty for the most part have graduated HS, gotten jobs and avoided children out of wedlock.

[darb72]

Darb, you restrained yourself from chiming in on this learned debate for so long, I am surprised you gave in.
It's not chiming in on the "debate" itself, it's an annoying habit of mine having to correct people when they're wrong. Makes my married life a lot more entertaining than it really should be.:thumbup:

If people here want to start throwing degrees around, then I'll win. Mine is in a stainless steel frame with bullet proof glass. That thing is dangerous and unbreakable.:D

[ClericBlackDave]

While people who attempt to ignore those studies are often those people who can't provide any studies to validate their own stance.

Show me a study that says high school graduates are just as likely to be living at the poverty level as those who didn't graduate high school.


That wasn't my claim. My claim is that it isn't that simple (thank you festivus).


You can't state these things as "rules" or as "fact". If you think the example I gave is the exception to the rule, you probably need to interact with homeless people more: volunteering is a good way.


But people stating statistics as fact . . . whatever floats your boat. But there are studies out there that "prove" a variety on contradicting views. This is why we have politics or discussions of this sort.


Its like arguing over, say, you know who at the QB position. Different stats will say different things, and people on different sides will use said stats to prove that their point is "fact"


When in reality, its more of an opinion that you're supporting with a statistic that you hope is more or less based on fact.


For that matter, there is nothing worse than mistaking correlation with causation.


As for "wreaks" v. "reeks" I dont really proof read these things. I proofread a lot of things, just not message board posts. If I notice the errors after I read the thread again, then I edit.


All this said, I'll stop beating this dead horse here.

[purplepoe]

All this said, I'll stop beating this dead horse here.

We all thank you.

PP

[Rochardrik]

Sure you can. You can take the good and bad from anything.

Want to talk about a huge dividing point between the races? The War of Northern Aggression.
Slavery was one reason for the war, which we all agree is a bad thing.
States Rights was another reason for the war which, depending on your political leanings, is a good thing.
Slavery = Bad.
States Rights = Good.
You completely missed the boat! We're talking morals. A person who holds up certain values, as righteous as they may be, but practices say, slavery, or bigotry, can you call him a man of high morals? Well, you may, but I won't! Nor will I be impressed by, or value, the values held by such persons.

[darb72]

We're talking morals. A person who holds up certain values, as righteous as they may be, but practices say, slavery, or bigotry, can you call him a man of high morals?
If you're discussing a single person, then no you can't seperate the two. A person who is a bigot isn't a good person. It's that simple.

It is possible to discuss the views on sexuality of a large sampling without taking their views on race into account. Since this conversation is largely based on views of sexuality then I fail to see how racism is of any importance.

[BlackSunday]

A few weeks back, CR wrote (in part):

If we are talking about a few inches I dont give a shit especially if it isnt packed.

This was regarding snow on car roofs, and not children out of wedlock, right?

Man, I go away for vacation, and miss this gem of a thread.

BS