The basis for many of our societal problems is absent fathers

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

If we're talking about emotional damage, let's consider the obvious and gaping hole in your life that has you sitting at your computer all day, every day, shitting up every corner of the forum and insisting to people how you're making them "insanely butthurt."  

 

I'm sure in your imagineation it's like that, and your lack of technology skills probably has you thinking that people still do this in front of a computer only.  Or that you even need a keyboard instead of just saying things. 

And observation isn't insistence   - you jumped into this thread, you're freaking out like a lunatic over how many times someone you don't know posts on the internet as if it affects your life - and you're imagining what i do all day.

ROFLMAO - yeah...  i'm "insisting", it's not obvious or anything    Kid - i live rent free in your head.  And honestly - looking around in here i'm still paying too much.   

So on both counts... as is so often the case when we speak... you're wrong. 

I realize that typing with two fingers slows you down a lot, but if you want to post more just learn to use voice dictation and an Iphone.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Ha Ha Ha

What profanity????   Be specific.

Your feelings being hurt are not profanity.

"This term derives from the older, more literal, sense of "profanity." This refers to sacrilege, or a lack of respect for things that are held to be sacred, which implies anything inspiring or deserving of reverence, as well as behaviour showing similar disrespect or causing religious offense.[4]"  --- Wikipedia

Profanity is not just one word, but it is also a general lack of respect for Biblical beliefs or God (the sacred).  God and his written word cannot be separated from life and truth.

Edited October 6, 2023 by blackbird

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

D9d not once mention financial status, that is you trying to put the blame on money.

Question is what's the common denominator. Is it skin colour or poverty. I say the latter, but one skin colour dominates among the poor, and that's why it seems to be skin.

[August1991]

On 10/4/2023 at 9:22 AM, I am Groot said:

I'm a fan of Thomas Sowell. He makes the case that since the number of black single-parent families exploded during the more enlightened time of the 1960s and 1970s (as opposed to earlier), that the cause is more closely related to the liberal welfare state than poverty.

...

I too like the reasoning of Thomas Sowell - but he lacks the data.

Many children in the past lost a father, mother - many women died in child-birth. The child was raised by older siblings, or aunts - and we all are still here. 

======

In the 1940s, many German/Russian men were killed or maimed. As a result, many Russians and Germans born in the the 1950s had no father.

IMHO, black Americans are not dysfunctional the same way. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

 

IMHO, black Americans are not dysfunctional the same way. 

I wonder if maybe they were under some special type of constraint? Maybe up until 1865 or so? ?

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

"This term derives from the older, more literal, sense of "profanity." This refers to sacrilege, or a lack of respect for things that are held to be sacred, which implies anything inspiring or deserving of reverence, as well as behaviour showing similar disrespect or causing religious offense.[4]"  --- Wikipedia

Profanity is not just one word, but it is also a general lack of respect for Biblical beliefs or God (the sacred).  God and his written word cannot be separated from life and truth.

Give it up.

Your pontification is wasted on me,

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Question is what's the common denominator. Is it skin colour or poverty. I say the latter, but one skin colour dominates among the poor, and that's why it seems to be skin.

I disagree, I think it is morals....rich or poor,  morals do not have a skin colour.

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I wonder if maybe they were under some special type of constraint? Maybe up until 1865 or so? ?

1865???

They have had 158 years since then to get their morals and $hit together but...clearly have not.

Bad excuse Michael.

[Moonbox]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And observation isn't insistence   - you jumped into this thread, you're freaking out like a lunatic over how many times someone you don't know posts on the internet as if it affects your life - and you're imagining what i do all day.

I don't have to imagine what you do all day. 

 

 

This is what an actual observation looks like.  ?

 

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1865???

They have had 158 years since then to get their morals and $hit together but...clearly have not.

Bad excuse Michael.

Ok, but the Jewish people are still not over their slavery either.

Ok for you to dismiss all that I guess...

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, but the Jewish people are still not over their slavery either.

Ok for you to dismiss all that I guess...

Jewish people will blame others forever. It has become more important than their religion.

Stop deflecting Michael.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Jewish people will blame others forever. It has become more important than their religion.

Stop deflecting Michael.

Deflecting? Do you think I'm a black Jewish person?

I'm a straight white male who believes that criticism begins at home. As such, I believe that we are always very adept at blaming other groups before we look at ourselves.

On this very board we have Chuds and borderline wannabe Chuds saying they don't care about truth and reconciliation, but going apoplectic over wearing poppies...

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Deflecting? Do you think I'm a black Jewish person?

I'm a straight white male who believes that criticism begins at home. As such, I believe that we are always very adept at blaming other groups before we look at ourselves.

On this very board we have Chuds and borderline wannabe Chuds saying they don't care about truth and reconciliation, but going apoplectic over wearing poppies...

Michael, we are discussing single parenthood amongst certain sectors of society.

You bringing up black slavery 158 years ago as an excuse (i am not sure why you brought it up), and Jewish sorrow claims of more than 2000 years (also not sure why you brought that up) is for sure deflection.

Chuds (whatever your constant recent use of that term) have nothing to do with this discussion as well.

I provided statistics....which you seem to disavow or ignore.

Lastly Michael, this discussion is about single parenthood, not about truth and reconciliation.

 

[BeaverFever]

On 10/3/2023 at 10:33 PM, I am Groot said:

Now you can make the argument this isn't exactly politics. But the problems that it gives rise to are always discussed in political terms, including crime, poverty, racism, and inequality. yet when those subjects are discussed virtually no one ever dares to mention the big fat elephant in the room. In the US, the most economically successful communities are those with the fewest single mothers. The most crime-ridden communities are those with the most single mothers. And yet this rarely seems to be mentioned whenever the news carries articles or stories about poverty, crime, or inequality.

The statistics, though, are pretty stark.

1. Poverty - Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor.

2. Drug and alcohol abuse - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.”

3. Physical and Emotional Health - children living with married biological parents had significantly fewer behavioral problems than children living with at least one non-biological parent. Children of single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to commit suicide, and children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers.

4. Educational Achievement - Children living with their married biological father tested at a significantly higher level than those living with a non-biological father. A father's involvement in school means more A's, and 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless.

5. Crime - Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in delinquency than their peers living in non-intact families.

6. Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy - adolescents in father-absence homes were more likely to report being sexually active compared to adolescents living with their fathers. Also, being raised by a single mother raises the risk of teen pregnancy, marrying with less than a high school degree, and forming a marriage where both partners have less than a high school degree.

 

https://kenhiebert.substack.com/p/the-real-systemic-problem-in-north?r=15ke9e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Also useless fathers, who don’t lift a finger around the house, leaving all the housework and parenting to the mother.  There’s more to being a father than simply bringing home a paycheque, playing the role of the scary disciplinarian, and occasionally playing catch in the backyard when it suits their mood. 
 

For every family I’ve known with an absent father I’ve known several with useless fathers who are simply uninvolved in their kids’ lives and leave everything up to the mother. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1.... is for sure deflection.

Chuds (whatever your constant recent use of that term) have nothing to do with this discussion as well.

2. I provided statistics....which you seem to disavow or ignore.

3. Lastly Michael, this discussion is about single parenthood, not about truth and reconciliation.

 

1. You don't get to censor relevant points, or tell me they're irrelevant.

2. You say slavery is irrelevant, I disagree.  I say your stats are being misused.  You disagree.  Go ahead and pursue the working theory from above that dark skin is doing it.

3. Uh huh.

I should have stayed away when I said I was going to... I'll try to do so now.

[ExFlyer]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You don't get to censor relevant points, or tell me they're irrelevant.

2. You say slavery is irrelevant, I disagree.  I say your stats are being misused.  You disagree.  Go ahead and pursue the working theory from above that dark skin is doing it.

3. Uh huh.

I should have stayed away when I said I was going to... I'll try to do so now.

Michael, I am not in any way telling you what is relevant or irrelevant. What I am saying, or telling if you insist, is that this topic is abuot single parenthood.

The stats are stats, no personal or preferred or bias. Numbers are numbers. If you actually looked at the numbers, I did, nor did the stats say "dark skin is doing it" that is your perception. It only says 36 (or more) % single parents are blacks.

And Michael, the title of the thread is "The basis for many of our societal problems is absent fathers" not slavery nor jewish insecurity.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I don't have to imagine what you do all day. 

 

This is what an actual observation looks like.  ?

 

Just because you're slow and have to type with two fingers doesn't mean I do

 I get it - i'm sure that to bronze age people our technology today would seem near god like so with you stuck behind your computer and having to take 20 minutes just to remember your password, it must seem near miraculous how much I post.

To me is pretty minor.  But it's HILARIOUS that you're big complaint is that i post more than you do   LOL

Kid, as we've seen many times , i'm smarter than you, i'm faster than you, i'm more technologically advanced than you, i'm more knowledgeable than you, I can research better than you, my comprehension skills are better than yours and you wind up looking stupid in just about ever discussion we have,

So i guess all  you've got left is to try to complain about  how much i post   ROFLMAO - man that's pathetic.

Hope that wasn't too much for you to read - i'm so fast i forget how much your brain hurts after more than a couple sentances  

[ExFlyer]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Question is what's the common denominator. Is it skin colour or poverty. I say the latter, but one skin colour dominates among the poor, and that's why it seems to be skin.

Really? Poverty? How many rich athletes and rappers and entertainers etc are out there screwing and making babies and walking away.

It is cultural.

[Moonbox]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Kid, as we've seen many times , i'm smarter than you, i'm faster than you, i'm more technologically advanced than you, i'm more knowledgeable than you, I can research better than you, my comprehension skills are better than yours and you wind up looking stupid in just about ever discussion we have,

If any of the above were remotely true, you wouldn't need to keep repeating it like an incantation.  As we know:

The same can be said about all of your limp boasting.  It's not really clear who you think you're convincing.  All you're doing is confirming your low self-esteem.  

Thanks for the laughs, as usual.  ?

Edited October 7, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If any of the above were remotely true, you wouldn't need to keep repeating it like an incantation.  As we know:

 

LOL - i repeat it every time you show up like an insecure puppy to complain that i'm typing too fast for you  

If you didn't need reminding so regularly it would never come up   But you're weird infatuation with me just won't stop.  
 

Quote

Thanks for the laughs, as usual.  ? 

 

Awww little guy - it's pretty obvious you're not laughing   Hope you feel better  

[SpankyMcFarland]

As has been pointed out above, it’s a complex matter to understand in terms of cause and effect. It’s probably both. Richer women with children tend to have partners.

In addition, I notice many writers on the right seem to underestimate the role of female agency in this matter and the mercenary side to the female psyche, so well captured in the opening lines of Pride and Prejudice and in the whole of Austen’s fiction for that matter:

Quote

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”

Humorous songs often contain serious truths:

Quote

 

It’s more obvious than ever that many women don’t like living with men and now they have a choice. Beyond all the fuzzy romantic stuff, what really matters in a prospective male partner is how much time and money he will commit to a family in the future. If he hasn’t got a steady job with clear prospects, is he really worth putting up with? There’s an extensive literature on how the status of chronically unemployed married men falls within the family unit. As female income rises, the proportion of men who make a lot more than women declines. I’m afraid the percentage of bachelors considered eligible by this criterion will continue to shrink.

Edited October 8, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

The title of the article says "The basis for many of our societal problems is absent fathers".    While this may be true in a certain sense, I believe it is an oversimplification of the situation.  There are many causes for family dysfunction.  But the underlying cause is the fall of man as recorded in Genesis ch3.  Eve was deceived by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit and offered some to Adam.  Adam simply disobeyed God and ate it.  As a result they received a fallen, corrupt nature and that was inherited by all of their ancestors since that time.

That resulted in the world becoming a corrupt fallen place and everyone a sinner.  There are lots of factors that result in single parents, but it is always sin as the underlying cause.  Government cannot solve this one.  This is something beyond the power of government to solve.  

The Catholic church thought they could solve some of it by making divorce illegal and refusing to acknowledge divorce.  But they set up a system called annulment where they would examine each case of people wanting to be "unmarried".  Then if they decided it warranted annulment, they would make that declaration and the couple would somehow miraculously become as if they were never married.   That is called an annulment.   But their opposition to divorce and granting annulments solved nothing.  Many people in central and south America for instance just split up or the husband moved out and lived with another woman in common law. 

Secondly often there is abuse of some kind in marriage and you can't force people in abusive or unhappy situations to remain together.  There are many women who are murdered by a partner in an abusive relationship.  So forcing people to stay together in a unhappy or abusive relationship is very dangerous for many women.

These are areas the government has no business and should keep out as far as possible.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by blackbird

[I am Groot]

On 10/6/2023 at 8:42 AM, ExFlyer said:

3. I am hardly "aghast", I was stating the obvious. Black (in the US) and indigenous (here in Canada) are the ones that

Black here in Canada, too.

Let me add a controversial comment/question on race. Can anyone look at the link below and not wonder what Canada's crime rate would be like if we'd never opened up immigration to the third world?

https://www.tps.ca/organizational-chart/specialized-operations-command/detective-operations/investigative-services/homicide/most-wanted/

Edited October 9, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

On 10/6/2023 at 11:30 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Valid and true aren't the same thing.  "I saw a black man stealing a bike, therefore black men are thieves"

A valid observation.  Is the conclusion right ?  

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

On 10/6/2023 at 4:32 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. I have explained twice now why I hate these discussions, and your comments are so wrongheaded to me as to validate my reasons there.

If you hate these discussions why the hell are you trying to take part in them? Go away and do something else!

Edited October 9, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

On 10/6/2023 at 8:09 PM, OftenWrong said:

Question is what's the common denominator. Is it skin colour or poverty. I say the latter, but one skin colour dominates among the poor, and that's why it seems to be skin.

It's not poverty alone. In the US, home to race statistics, blacks are roughly the same income as Hispanics, but they commit much more crime, especially violent crime. However, while their incomes are similar, Hispanic FAMILIES have quite a bit more wealth than Black families, though. Why? Because Black families are more likely to be single-income families (67% vs 42%).

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

Edited October 9, 2023 by I am Groot