Single Mother ain't no badge of honor.

[builder]

Your ten year old report focusses on negroes and welfare recipients, Hugo.

 

Your closing statement focusses on 16 year-old kids giving birth to kids and being supported by the gov.

 

Do you have a group in mind, or are you seeking back-up from all and any source?

[TheJenn88]

Hugo, your argument would have ten times the credibility if you seriously considered one factor that you're missing.

 

Socioeconomic status & environment versus the actuality of just a single parent.

 

Problems in child-behaviour is not because of the number of parents they do or don't have. Here, let me point out to you some very simple connections to be made:

 

Single-parent + bad environment = messed kid

Single-parent + good environment = good kid

 

Two-parent + bad environment = messed kid

Two-parent + good environment = good kid

 

Now, to draw conclusions, you can see that the only common factor in "messed" kids is a bad environment (which may encompass wealth/lack of, education, bad parenting, whichever).

 

I'm all for you saying that bad socioeconomic status is a leading cause in early pregnancies, or nonmarital pregnancies. Well, not so much a cause, but a common factor, because it is true. The less fortunate an environment seems to be, the more negative things people produce from it. However, what you are arguing is that because a kid is raised by a single parent, they are a messed kid.

 

"Nonmarital childbearing" isn't really an issue so much as the environment it is taking place in. It's true that just because a good environment is in place, that's not to say that a bad apple won't turn out, but work with me. I'm generalizing the issue.

 

Hugo, I agree that single-parenting is a problem, but only because it is most likely to occur in environments that are less than favourable.

[TheJenn88]

LICK MY HAIRY BALLS, AND THEN SUCK ON MY ASSHOLE FOR GOOD MEASURE.

 

...

 

Go slap yourself twice for being so stupid.

 

Ahh, CES, we missed you

[builder]

Hugo, your argument would have ten times the credibility if you seriously considered one factor that you're missing.

 

Socioeconomic status & environment versus the actuality of just a single parent.

 

Problems in child-behaviour is not because of the number of parents they do or don't have. Here, let me point out to you some very simple connections to be made:

 

Single-parent + bad environment = messed kid

Single-parent + good environment = good kid

 

Two-parent + bad environment = messed kid

Two-parent + good environment = good kid

 

Now, to draw conclusions, you can see that the only common factor in "messed" kids is a bad environment (which may encompass wealth/lack of, education, bad parenting, whichever).

 

I'm all for you saying that bad socioeconomic status is a leading cause in early pregnancies, or nonmarital pregnancies. Well, not so much a cause, but a common factor, because it is true. The less fortunate an environment seems to be, the more negative things people produce from it. However, what you are arguing is that because a kid is raised by a single parent, they are a messed kid.

 

"Nonmarital childbearing" isn't really an issue so much as the environment it is taking place in. It's true that just because a good environment is in place, that's not to say that a bad apple won't turn out, but work with me. I'm generalizing the issue.

 

Hugo, I agree that single-parenting is a problem, but only because it is most likely to occur in environments that are less than favourable.

 

 

Damn, Jenn. You're good.

[RoyalOrleans]

Hugo, do us all a favor! Punch out and go home.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...blah blah blah...

 

...two parents tend to do a better job then one...but 16 year olds having children out of wedlock should definitely be discouraged...A upper income family that gets divorced can use other resources and, of course, the non-custodial parent can remain a strong influence in a child's life...Currently our government subsidizes the bastardization of America...That needs to stop.

 

Hmm...

 

Put this rant in context with your beloved "Signature"... You wish to interfere don't you?

 

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. The only purpose, for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." — John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859.

[builder]

I'm not so sure he "wishes to interfere" CES. I think he's creating more strawmen for the sake of distraction.

 

I trust hugo-a-gogo about as far as I could drop-kick a sack of spuds.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I'm not so sure he "wishes to interfere" CES. I think he's creating more strawmen for the sake of distraction.

 

I trust hugo-a-gogo about as far as I could drop-kick a sack of spuds.

 

 

LMAO.

 

So, you diggers seeing the news about our self-delusional King George the First who thinks it's "Okay" to violate the United States Constitution in the pursuit of "National Security"?

 

Truly, as one who voted for this idiot, twice, not because I wanted him, but because I thought the other guy was worse, I formally apologize to the WORLD for all of his stupid actions. If it were in my power to remove the guy from office, I would, yesterday.

[builder]

Hmmm, I wasn't actually going there, but if you insist, I am most impressed with congress vetoing shrub's push for extending anti-towel head legislation, and cheney's push to have the CIA exempted from torture legislation. About fucking time they woke up to the ruse.

[hugo]

Hugo, your argument would have ten times the credibility if you seriously considered one factor that you're missing.

 

Socioeconomic status & environment versus the actuality of just a single parent.

 

Problems in child-behaviour is not because of the number of parents they do or don't have. Here, let me point out to you some very simple connections to be made:

 

Single-parent + bad environment = messed kid

Single-parent + good environment = good kid

 

Two-parent + bad environment = messed kid

Two-parent + good environment = good kid

 

Now, to draw conclusions, you can see that the only common factor in "messed" kids is a bad environment (which may encompass wealth/lack of, education, bad parenting, whichever).

 

I'm all for you saying that bad socioeconomic status is a leading cause in early pregnancies, or nonmarital pregnancies. Well, not so much a cause, but a common factor, because it is true. The less fortunate an environment seems to be, the more negative things people produce from it. However, what you are arguing is that because a kid is raised by a single parent, they are a messed kid.

 

"Nonmarital childbearing" isn't really an issue so much as the environment it is taking place in. It's true that just because a good environment is in place, that's not to say that a bad apple won't turn out, but work with me. I'm generalizing the issue.

 

Hugo, I agree that single-parenting is a problem, but only because it is most likely to occur in environments that are less than favourable.

 

You are actually half right. What you are missing is the vicious cycle. Children being born out of wedlock, particularly to those in lower income classes, propagates poverty, misery and crime. What we also need to ask is why the rate of illegitimacy has tripled since the late Senator Moynihan's famous report on the destruction of the negro family. It seems to me that LBJ's war on poverty simply created more poverty.

 

The only thing I have argued is that children from single parent families are more likely to be messed up kids, not that they will be. Obviously, the ideal situation is to be part of a happy family. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world.

 

Cause and effect are intertwined here. If illegitimacy was simply the result of economic conditions illegitimacy would not have nearly tripled since the '60's.

[hugo]

Hmm...

 

Put this rant in context with your beloved "Signature"... You wish to interfere don't you?

 

Yep, sure can. It is government taking money from responsible peaople and giving it to irresponsible people that propagates illegitimacy and poverty. I wish government to stay out of the issue completely. The free market will adequately punish the irresponsible.

 

Wanna reduce poverty...stop paying people to have kids they can't support. Basic rule in economics: subsidize something you get more of it.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

It is government taking money from responsible peaople [sic] and giving it to irresponsible people that propagates illegitimacy and poverty.

 

Really, where? How so?

 

Wanna reduce poverty...stop paying people to have kids they can't support. Basic rule in economics: subsidize something you get more of it.

 

Really. How does the government pay people to have kids they cannot support? Obviously you have no clue as to the welfare reforms that went into effect YEARS ago. You love to shoot of your mouth don't you? Not to mention you thrash about more than a fish out of water. First you're blaming single mothers, then the government, then the welfare system which no longer exists in the guise you think it does. If you were not so damn stupid and lazy and had bothered to check this out, you might have saved us all the experience of your ignorance once again.

 

But then again, given your penchant for one dimensional thought, with your logic, the government should eliminate the tax deductions for children because then they are subsidizing more mouths to feed and this is WRONG. Right? Afterall, if you want to have children, why should I have to pay for it in the form of tax breaks to you? What a crock of shit!

 

Funny, they only thing I see being subsidized here are your cheap ass and bullshit comments. What's the matter Hugo, can't cough up the $12 bucks to be a supporter of GF and help support the soapbox you love to stand on? Cheapskate Bastard!

 

Oh, and one last thing...you need to change your location from "Houston, Tx death penalty capital of the world" to "Houston, TX - Tittie Bar and Couch Club Capital of the World" Afterall, you do live in the biggest den of iniquity in the USA but then you knew that Houston has more strip/couch clubs than even Las Vegas, right? Hell, I bet you're having a sandwich and a beer at Rick's Cabaret right now!

[TheJenn88]

You are actually half right. What you are missing is the vicious cycle.

 

Actually, since you seemed to have missed my whole post, I'll reiterate.

 

Bad environment = spawning of bad kid.

Here, let me loop it for you.

 

Bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others = bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others need I go on?

 

You see, I touched on the viscious cycle issue. Fortunately, it doesn't take a half-assed idiot to understand the concept of the "ripple" effect, or cause and effect, etc. etc. You seem to know the concept, just don't miss it

[eisanbt]

Wanna reduce poverty...stop paying people to have kids they can't support. Basic rule in economics: subsidize something you get more of it.

 

They've been not-supporting african familys in poverty for years now, thats sure is working isn't it? I don't think there is ANY starving children in Africa or anycases of over population, rape or poor living conditions for the many nuclear familys in Sudan. Luckly the market killed off all the people who choose not to be sulf-sustaining and leeched off the good systems that was feeding their greed/illigtimate babies

 

Oh laisez-faire capitalism, how effective you are. (Please note the total lack of sarcasim in this post, including this very comment)

[hugo]

Actually, since you seemed to have missed my whole post, I'll reiterate.

 

Bad environment = spawning of bad kid.

Here, let me loop it for you.

 

Bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others = bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others need I go on?

 

You see, I touched on the viscious cycle issue. Fortunately, it doesn't take a half-assed idiot to understand the concept of the "ripple" effect, or cause and effect, etc. etc. You seem to know the concept, just don't miss it

 

It is quite clear you are an idiot. Let me explain this...two good parents help their child overcome a bad environment. In every environment you have success stories.

[hugo]

They've been not-supporting african familys in poverty for years now, thats sure is working isn't it? I don't think there is ANY starving children in Africa or anycases of over population, rape or poor living conditions for the many nuclear familys in Sudan. Luckly the market killed off all the people who choose not to be sulf-sustaining and leeched off the good systems that was feeding their greed/illigtimate babies

 

Oh laisez-faire capitalism, how effective you are. (Please note the total lack of sarcasim in this post, including this very comment)

 

You are a total idiot. From ww.sudan.gov

 

National economy

 

8. The State shall promote the development of national economy and guide it by planning on the basis of work, production and free market, in a manner fending off monopoly, usury and fraud, and strive for national self-sufficiency for the achievement of affluence and bounty and endeavour towards justice among states and regions.

 

 

 

Natural wealth

 

9. Natural resources under or on the surface of the earth and in the territorial waters is public property regulated by law; and the State shall provide plans and appropriate conditions for the development of the financial and human resources necessary for utilizing such wealth.

 

 

 

Zakat and fiscal levies

 

10. Zakat is a financial duty, levied by the State, and the law shall regulate the manner of collection, expenditure and management thereof. Trusts, charities and self-aid are voluntary resources encouraged by the State and regulated by law, which as well regulates in a fair manner taxes, fees and other levies.

 

 

 

Social justice and mutual aid

 

11. The State shall give due regard to social justice and mutual aid in order to build the basic components of the society, to provide the highest standard of good living for every citizen, and to distribute national income in a just manner to prevent serious disparity in incomes, civil strife, exploitation of the enfeebled and to care for the aged and disabled.

 

That ain't laisez-faire.

[tiredofwhiners]

I've got the answer...When children are born pick a sex, boy or girl and fix them at birth. Then when they want children or can afford them they go get a reversal. Then all the crank whores can fuck away for there fix, and not ruin life for a child who didn't choose to be born.

 

How come the people who least need or should have kids, have the most?

[builder]

I've got the answer...When children are born pick a sex, boy or girl and fix them at birth. Then when they want children or can afford them they go get a reversal. Then all the crank whores can fuck away for there fix, and not ruin life for a child who didn't choose to be born.

 

How come the people who least need or should have kids, have the most?

 

They don't have obligations, like work, family life, relationships, debts, so they get to fuck all the time. Lucky fuckers.

 

Your proposal is rather socialist/communist, but that's the way things are heading. We can't grow and mature as a people with all these inbred underachievers taking over all the bedspace in hospitals, sucking up all the tax dollars, and supporting the black market through addictions now, can we?

[Elmoish]

You can post all the stats you want and quote all the "those who know" you want, it's all bull. Through divorce I raised my daughter from age 2 on by myself and did a damn fine job with a daughter to be proud of. Through all these years I witnessed the same of other single parent families. I also witnessed the opposite in both single and 2 parent families. It's not the quantity of parents, it's the quality.

 

Oh, statistics are bull. Wow.

 

Take a stroll through Compton, CA. I think that would probably convince you if the statistics don't.

 

I think you are prickly because of guilt.

[eisanbt]

 

That ain't laisez-faire.

 

 

I wasn't saying that Sudan was Laisez-Faire you cum rag, but your comment that the Market will punish the idiots and help to good is entirly laisez-faire capitalism.

 

And although the government of Sudan is stated as wanting to implement such programs of aid to its people they simply don't have resources. If the global capitalist system, which is about laisez-faire as you'll find, and functions almost entirly as you would so like, without government regulation that is, then it would seem that the poverty crises we see in afirca is because they're all a bunch of lazy slackers who can't pull their own weight and their deaths are the result of the markjet rebalencing.

[Elmoish]

I wasn't saying that Sudan was Laisez-Faire you cum rag, but your comment that the Market will punish the idiots and help to good is entirly laisez-faire capitalism.

 

And although the government of Sudan is stated as wanting to implement such programs of aid to its people they simply don't have resources. If the global capitalist system, which is about laisez-faire as you'll find, and functions almost entirly as you would so like, without government regulation that is, then it would seem that the poverty crises we see in afirca is because they're all a bunch of lazy slackers who can't pull their own weight and their deaths are the result of the markjet rebalencing.

 

 

Calling your intellectual opponent a cum rag is always a plus for your side!

[eisanbt]

Seldom do I use direct insults in my arguments, however I find it most appropiate to do so when the person arguing against me an egotistical, short sighted cum rag.

[TheJenn88]

It is quite clear you are an idiot. Let me explain this...two good parents help their child overcome a bad environment. In every environment you have success stories.

 

What? How is that even related. It's like if I DON'T say that, "yes, there are exceptional cases," then you feel free to assume that I don't know anything outside the scope of what I say.

 

I'll clear this up, since you seem a bit too idiotic to comprehend, or to be able to "generalize."

 

People who grow up in bad environments HAVE A TENDENCY to repeat that environment.

And in case you FORGOT, I INCLUDED parenting under my environment in my first post in this thread.

[TheJenn88]

Seldom do I use direct insults in my arguments, however I find it most appropiate to do so when the person arguing against me an egotistical, short sighted cum rag.

 

Well, you're certainly at another vantage point when you are able to come up with words other than "idiot" or "total idiot."

 

I think hugo is feeling a bit ganged up on, here.

Dear, you simply have a shitty argument. You just killed ten kittens with your "idiocy."

 

P.S. Gentlemen, it's laissez-faire.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Um Jenn...

 

Has hugo ever had a valid argument? Most everything of his I've read seems to be a half-assed unidimensional thought without any real thought behind it. Pity. I really think he could do better with some effort and independent thought.