Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:21 am Not true. They abused their own daughters and murdered two of them.

The existence of two psychopaths does not tell us anything about the norm. An anecdote is not a refutation to a generalization, unless that generalization has been offered as absolute. And nobody has done that.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:27 am ...it would have been a different situation had the parents been biological parents...

There is zero data to show an "if."

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:36 am Are you suggesting that most parents who parent alone are neglectful and abusive towards their children, and that those who don't are 'an exception'?

I'm saying what the data says: that the children of single-parent homes, on average, (not in all individual cases) are considerably worse off in a variety of ways, including poverty, social maladjustment, criminality, drug abuse, pregnancy rates, gang involvement, misogyny, and all the other ways the data shows.

I'm saying there are cases where single parents have been more successful; but even in those, the majority of lone parents lament that their lot is hard, their task is more difficult, and that they are lonely, overtaxed, overstressed and short on resources of all kinds.

If you suppose they're lying, you can say so: but I have no reason to doubt the overwhelming preponderance of the data, or their word, since both agree.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:51 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:41 am I don't want to talk to Mr. Can right now... he is always oozing self-indulgent crap, and he's a twisted slimy phony, and I've had more than enough of him lately.

'Twisted, slimy phony'. That's so apt. If you spent less time getting fucked off with me and more time noticing that I admire your insight and use of language....

Ah, well then, thank you.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:54 am I have psychological issues and women, quite understandably, don't like men with psychological issues. (Not saying IC has psychological issues) And of course, if women ostracize a man for having psychological issues, it just exacerbates the psychological issues, often producing resentment. Fortunately for me, I tend to choose depression over anger and resentment. I think depression is essentially anger and resentment turned inward. It's like my mind is performing scorched earth tactics on my own psyche. Rather than allow myself to become destructive socially toward the community I tend to wreak havoc within myself. It's like my mind is fighting a virus. I know what is right and what is wrong, I try not to do wrong so in order to prevent it I just wreck my brain into a dysfunctional mess instead.

Is your energy/belief primarily focused on identifying yourself as that reality... or do you devote as much energy/belief to evolving and exploring beyond it with helpful aids (mind/body therapies, reading, medication, etc.)? If we all have some capability to choose the extent to what we are, how do we determine the limitations?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:23 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:36 am Are you suggesting that most parents who parent alone are neglectful and abusive towards their children, and that those who don't are 'an exception'?

I'm saying what the data says: that the children of single-parent homes, on average, (not in all individual cases) are considerably worse off in a variety of ways, including poverty, social maladjustment, criminality, drug abuse, pregnancy rates, gang involvement, misogyny, and all the other ways the data shows.

I'm saying there are cases where single parents have been more successful; but even in those, the majority of lone parents lament that their lot is hard, their task is more difficult, and that they are lonely, overtaxed, overstressed and short on resources of all kinds.

If you suppose they're lying, you can say so: but I have no reason to doubt the overwhelming preponderance of the data, or their word, since both agree.

And I've pointed out that your use of 'stats' is flawed and shallow. The only way it could be accurate is if you took into account only familes whose circumstances were exactly the same in every respect except for the fact that half the children grew up with two parents and the other half one parent. Same opportunities. Same level of nurturing and love. Same diet. Same schooling. Then compare twenty years later how those children fared. We are never going to agree as you are set in your kristian 'thinking' and blinkered misogyny. Nothing is going to change that so there's no point in continuing to go in circles.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:27 am ...it would have been a different situation had the parents been biological parents...

There is zero data to show an "if."

What do you mean? Do you mean there are no cases of biological parents killing their own children?

Also, do you think it's because someone is a single parent that they may often not do a good job raising children or do you think it's because of factors associated with single parenthood, such as more limited time and resources?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:36 pm I've pointed out that your use of 'stats' is flawed and shallow.

Wrongly, of course; but yes, you have tried to say that.

One wonders which of the eight or ten studies to which I've already provided links above, or which of the many, many other available studies, you think is "flawed." All of them, I suppose.

I think they're not really "flawed" at all. I think you just don't like what they show.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:27 am ...it would have been a different situation had the parents been biological parents...

There is zero data to show an "if."

What do you mean? Do you mean there are no cases of biological parents killing their own children?

No, of course not. I mean that we can never say what would have been the case IF a particular case had not been what it was. We are never in a situation to say what a parent who was, as a matter of fact, married, would have been like IF he or she had been single, or what a single person would do IF he/she had been married instead. The IF case never happened, and we don't know what other variables it would have involved.

So in estimating the best course, we can only speak intelligibly of averages, of generalizations, of demographic or sociological trends. The individual cases may line up on either side: but they don't line up equally, of course, and that's why we can refer to averages and generalizations.

Also, do you think it's because someone is a single parent that they may often not do a good job raising children or do you think it's because of factors associated with single parenthood, such as more limited time and resources?

That's a judgment based on a single case. I don't make any such judgment, nor think anyone can. Again, I'm speaking of averages and in generalities. I'm not indicting any specific case.

But if there's an answer to your question, Gary, it doesn't have to be an either/or...it's more likely a both. It's not unlikely that the outcome in a specific case will be composed of BOTH the decisions of the lone parent AND factors associated with his/her situation, is it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:29 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:36 pm I've pointed out that your use of 'stats' is flawed and shallow.

Wrongly, of course; but yes, you have tried to say that.

One wonders which of the eight or ten studies to which I've already provided links above, or which of the many, many other available studies, you think is "flawed." All of them, I suppose.

I think they're not really "flawed" at all. I think you just don't like what they show.

You've ignored all my points so fuck off then.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:27 pm You've ignored all my points...

Not at all. I just pointed out that your lapsing into an necdote has nothing to do with refuting generalizations, and that your claim that the research is "flawed" is highly improbable, given the amount of research that supports the value of two-parent families.

That's not "ignoring"; that's "showing errant."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:23 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:27 pm You've ignored all my points...

Not at all. I just pointed out that your lapsing into an necdote has nothing to do with refuting generalizations, and that your claim that the research is "flawed" is highly improbable, given the amount of research that supports the value of two-parent families.

That's not "ignoring"; that's "showing errant."

And all 'you' do is post links...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:30 am And all 'you' do is post links...

All you seem to do is ignore the data.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:56 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:30 am And all 'you' do is post links...

All you seem to do is ignore the data.

That's the way it goes: you assert X, they wanna see the data; you offer the link to the data, they won't open the link; you actually post the data, they ignore it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:56 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:30 am And all 'you' do is post links...

All you seem to do is ignore the data.

I pointed out the holes in your data. You had nothing to say about that.