[Unknown Target]

While not following the whole debate, Liberator, while there I do believe that a child should have a father figure growing up, I don't believe that a child when properly raised by it's mother will be more prone to violence than one with both parents. They may have other developmental problems, but as long as the mother is actually, you know, doing her job as a parent, then I feel that in many cases the child may develop quite well, having to learn to cope with the hardship of a single parent household and making them a stronger person.

That being said, I will repeat my sentiment that a child should have a father figure in their lives, just as they should have a mother figure. One without the other is always hard for the child.

[Mefustae]

You know who else had a single parent?

A young guy called Jesus.

Yeah. Think about that one.

[Janos]

Lastly, while they're may not be an earth shattering correlation between effectively fatherless children and violent crime, there is a connection.  Anyone who can recognize simple patterns can see it.  A little bit of inductive reasoning is all it takes.  Crime is high in the inner city, the highest concentration of "fatherless" children is in the inner city, ergo at least part of the higher crime rate is created by children who would have a lower chance of committing a crime had they had a positive male influence.  That's a little simple and it should include a relation to gang membership also, but it's late and I'm tired.

No. This is not how it works. There is a connection between metros and violent crime, and Starbucks and streets, and houses and people, and probably vacuum cleaners and homicides as well! Now (after ignoring MP-Ryan's post which kinda debunks your arugment) what you do is taking facts ("crime is high in the inner city" and "highest concentration of fatherless children is in the inner city"), then somehow decide that positive MALE influence - why is this always male? It's almost as if there's a S word to be thrown somewhere. These poor ladies obviously can't raise children? Where was I? Oh! Yeah, you completely bypass all statistical tests, make an unfounded assumption and assume this argument holds water?

No it does not. Do these "fatherless" children actually commit any more crime than statistically probable? Does positive MALE MALE MALE MANLY MAN MALE influence have a reducing effect to crime? You have to prove these assumptions and not just take them for granted. Go crazy on Google! A journal access probably helps. Without proving these things this argument is not valid.

Now after all of this, I have a feeling that you still do not quite grasp one very simple thing so here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

My big, throbbing, huge, overwhelming cry is for people to stop living in a world where the response to a negative situation is "It's not my fault!"  A return of personal responsibility is what the world needs.

Does personal responsibility mean copy-pasting Ann Coulter's arguments about how OTHER PEOPLE SUCK into internet discussion board?

[Dilmah G]

While not following the whole debate, Liberator, while there I do believe that a child should have a father figure growing up, I don't believe that a child when properly raised by it's mother will be more prone to violence than one with both parents. They may have other developmental problems, but as long as the mother is actually, you know, doing her job as a parent, then I feel that in many cases the child may develop quite well, having to learn to cope with the hardship of a single parent household and making them a stronger person.

That being said, I will repeat my sentiment that a child should have a father figure in their lives, just as they should have a mother figure. One without the other is always hard for the child.

I haven't been watching this one unfold either, but while I can agree the child will probably develop well, the father figure is something I want to touch on. In my experience with people in Gangs/Crews, they replace the father figure with the voice of their crew. I've been told it's more specifically the crew leader/king in America, I haven't seen such a big influence over here by the leader specifically. But regardless of the presence of a father figure, if he is present, he needs to be doing a good job. I've seen a guy in my class, his parents head the company "Credit Force", fall into basically the situation most of you guys are talking about. Except he isn't a complete asshole, at least he wasn't the last time I talked to him, but unlike most other kind people I talk to, he's been caught by cops 3 times for graffiti and every time I see him out of school, he's surrounded by the most notorious people in "my world". And the sad part is, he's actually doing the best out of his siblings, by not dropping out of school in Years 8/9. I don't know much about his parents, and for good reason too, they're hardly ever around.

I don't think the problem lies with the father figure solely, but how role models are generally presented in life. The guy I was talking about before, whom I won't name, has both parents, however his older siblings are POOR role models.

[Mars]

The strongest father figure of my childhood was not my father, even though I grew up with both parents

[MP-Ryan]

  If abortion wasn't viewed as babykilling and made more available, I can guarantee inner city crime and violence would drop.

A study found that result exactly.  You don't have to speculate anything.  I mentioned this at the end of my post.

[Liberator]

You know who else had a single parent?

A young guy called Jesus.

Yeah. Think about that one.

Everyone forgets Joseph.  They always forget about the carpenter. 

Parenthood doesn't mean biology, not entirely anyway.  It means being there to teach the child(ren) their gender roles within society.  What is expected of a good man/woman.  It's irritating when a biological donor shows up and sues for custody of "they're" teenaged child.  There's no link with any meaning that would be enhanced by putting that much turmoil into the child's life.

Also, the traditional role of a mother is caretaker, a woman will choose the nurture option almost every time.  The traditional role of the father is disciplinarian.  This isn't to say that a mother won't swat her misbehaving child on the tush if they need it, but they'll sit there and let them get away with more before it happens.  Father's not so much.  You step out of line, BLAP! back into line.  Conversely, a father can be nurturing as well.  But the two genders aren't really wired for the other's job.  They can do them, just not well, kinda like flying an Ursa on a fighter intercept mission.

[General Battuta]

My big, throbbing, huge, overwhelming cry is for people to stop living in a world where the response to a negative situation is "It's not my fault!"  A return of personal responsibility is what the world needs.

You have no evidence that personal responsibility has ever left. All you have is a political fantasy.

But the two genders aren't really wired for the other's job.  They can do them, just not well, kinda like flying an Ursa on a fighter intercept mission.

Genders aren't hardwired, you idiot. Genders are social construct.

And you have no right to say anything about the biological hardwiring of the two sexes (sex =! gender)when scientists are still struggling to make headway on the issue.

But from what I'm reading here, you're conceding that marriage isn't important, only the presence of a male figure?

[Polpolion]

But the two genders aren't really wired for the other's job.  They can do them, just not well, kinda like flying an Ursa on a fighter intercept mission.

Genders aren't hardwired, you idiot. Genders are social construct.

And you have no right to say anything about the biological hardwiring of the two sexes (sex =! gender)when scientists are still struggling to make headway on the issue.

But from what I'm reading here, you're conceding that marriage isn't important, only the presence of a male figure?

Genders did not spontaneously appear one day. Gradually the social roles of the sexes were sculpted because of things that one gender was generally better at than the other. But you are correct in saying that these don't necessarily apply to modern life.

Look at breast milk for example. With domesticated animals, females don't need to breast feed children, but in prehistoric times they did. This particular facet of gender roles is now obsolete. Even still, the concept of the female being the primary caretaker of a child stuck. And there is our modern stereotype.

Bear in mind that gender roles came about based on true generalities about the different sexes, not just how people spontaneously decided that they were better than the other sex. The reason I point this out is because I think this is what Liberator was trying to point out, and I myself would like to point out to him that (like I said earlier in this post) most gender roles are obsolete given the way modern society works.

[General Battuta]

Yes, but we have to be careful with evopsych explanations for gender roles, because they tend to become unsubstantiated and untestable just-so stories.

[Goober5000]

If abortion wasn't viewed as babykilling and made more available, I can guarantee inner city crime and violence would drop.

A study found that result exactly.  You don't have to speculate anything.  I mentioned this at the end of my post.

I happen to agree with that.  Abortions reduce crime and violence because those most prone to crime and violence are also those most likely to get abortions.  But if abortion is wrong, then that's not an acceptable solution.  It's just as immoral as killing people to alleviate food shortages.

You have no evidence that personal responsibility has ever left.

One look at the amount of credit card debt in the average family would convince me otherwise.

But the two genders aren't really wired for the other's job.  They can do them, just not well, kinda like flying an Ursa on a fighter intercept mission.

Genders aren't hardwired, you idiot. Genders are social construct.

And you have no right to say anything about the biological hardwiring of the two sexes (sex =! gender)when scientists are still struggling to make headway on the issue.

No personal attacks please.  And I think one could safely make a conclusion about the biological hardwiring of the sexes based on an examination of human history.  "Cross-wiring" of genders is the exception, not the rule.  And there hasn't been a single successful "Amazon woman" society anywhere in the world, ever.

[Janos]

Genders did not spontaneously appear one day. Gradually the social roles of the sexes were sculpted because of things that one gender was generally better at than the other. But you are correct in saying that these don't necessarily apply to modern life.

Look at breast milk for example. With domesticated animals, females don't need to breast feed children, but in prehistoric times they did. This particular facet of gender roles is now obsolete. Even still, the concept of the female being the primary caretaker of a child stuck. And there is our modern stereotype.

Bear in mind that gender roles came about based on true generalities about the different sexes, not just how people spontaneously decided that they were better than the other sex. The reason I point this out is because I think this is what Liberator was trying to point out, and I myself would like to point out to him that (like I said earlier in this post) most gender roles are obsolete given the way modern society works.

No personal attacks please.  And I think one could safely make a conclusion about the biological hardwiring of the sexes based on an examination of human history.  "Cross-wiring" of genders is the exception, not the rule.  And there hasn't been a single successful "Amazon woman" society anywhere in the world, ever.

It does not work like that! The modern social gender is not just some unfalsifiable post hoc ergo propter hoc handwaving. It changes every day, every year, and the changes are big. The social gender in question was, until Liberator probably changed the subjet again current American one. Not some ancient amazonian tales.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I have to agree with Janos here. The argument you're making isn't really a scientific one, Goob; it could just reflect a very enduring and deep-set power dynamic.

But I'm gonna step back from this discussion. I'm obviously getting a bit frustrated.

[Snail]

I take FreeSpace-related debates far too seriously, but when it comes to RL politics, I like the drama.

[Polpolion]

It changes every day, every year, and the changes are big.

Do I live under a rock, or do I just not pay attention?

Oh well, it's not like I'm an expert on this anyway. I don't think I was wrong in what I said exactly, but there's much more to it than that.

[Turambar]

Social conservatives hate freedom

[Janos]

It changes every day, every year, and the changes are big.

Do I live under a rock, or do I just not pay attention?
Oh well, it's not like I'm an expert on this anyway. I don't think I was wrong in what I said exactly, but there's much more to it than that.

gotta go to a store to buy stuff I did not grow and also I like to dress fancily because currently it's the hot nudie jeans that give me chicks

[Liberator]

Social conservatives hate freedom

Umm, lawl.

Seriously though...how can you say that because I favor a more responsible view on sex and relationships that I hate freedom?

[General Battuta]

The fact that you're scared of sex, particularly of female sexuality, doesn't seem to be a good foundation for policy.

[Blue Lion]

Social conservatives hate freedom

Umm, lawl.

Seriously though...how can you say that because I favor a more responsible view on sex and relationships that I hate freedom?

You want to restrict how people behave sexually?