Unpopular opinions.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

CBA going through the last few pages but is this the definitely left of centre poster posting right wing/Tory talking points again?

[scottmcleanscontacts]

There's very little basis for it though. I've read a few research pieces on single parent families as part of a degree and very often, though not always, the participants selected for these studies are not entirely random. That would be putting it kindly.

 

What you have to remember, if a Social Researcher wants to prove their hypothesis they are less likely to be wanton about who will take part. There's a good reason that Psychology and many of its research papers are not taken particularly seriously and the discipline really needs to get its finger out and repair damage.

 

Of course, once their work is peer reviewed and published to some journal or other, the papers/media will take from that what they want, write a headline that is barely recognisable as part of the study and then of course Kev and Wendy will see that and their minds will be made up.

 

 

 

 

[Shandon Par]

19 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Fucksake, it's Mary Whitehouse re-incarnated.

Wid. 

 

[D.A.F.C]

Mainly you're getting resistance because you're depicting something with many structural issues as mostly a matter of character failing among single parents.
These things all disappear when people have decent work at a decent wage. That's just harder to achieve for some folk because of where they were born and what their name is, so there's less slack to handle what life throws at you and proportionally more of these people end up operating at the margins of what society says is OK. It isn't because they're lacking some essential quality the rest of us have, so depicting it as a failure to take responsibility is justifiably criticised.
 

I did actually mention poverty and its role in outcomes.
You also can't say that everyone is blameless and their circumstances caused the issue. Nobody is perfect but some people are making bad choices.
This is an unpopular opinion thread btw.

[Dunning1874]

21 hours ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

There's nothing revisionist going on. When Marx lived, he wasn't taken seriously. 6 years after his death is still quite some time.

And it's quite clear that he didn't mean what Lenin decided to go and do under his regime.
 

There is always revisionism going on.

[D.A.F.C]

At an individual level, no. We all have to play the game according to its rules by and large. At a population level, yes you absolutely can say that.

Going back to the original point of why some kids can't behave this was why I originally posted about single parents and lack of a father type figure.
I did try and back it up with facts from America and that the black community has a disproportionate level of single mums and also a disproportionate level of crime and gang culture.
So this really is my controversial opinion not that single mums are to blame or terrible or below anyone else just that sometimes bad choices are made.
Lack of father figures seem to have an effect on kids behaviour at times and with todays modern views this is very out of step with modern parenting views.
I realise that people from this demographic will react badly to it and lash out due to the general shaming of single parents as if they all made a mistake.
Really dont know if its just my friends group or local area but genuinely it does seem like 80% of women 25-40 are single with a kid or kids. That seems really high and its not exactly an impoverished area full of junkies etc. Just feel like if this was across the board then its quite surprising.

TBH it says more about the dads then the mums, this isnt an attack on anyone.

[Hedgecutter]

15 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

Single parent households have more problems than households with two parents with their kids. Google it

Found this and one must also blame dwindling church attendances. This bit of moral guidance from the gospel would soon sort them out:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. 

- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 

[Stellaboz]

3 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Found this and one must also blame dwindling church attendances. This bit of moral guidance from the gospel would soon sort them out:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. 

- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 

Was it Abraham or Noah that allegedly tried to drunkenly shag his own son? 

[D.A.F.C]

well, again I'd probably lump all of that including being raised in a single parent household as a symptom of a more insidious structural issue than a cause in itself of worse outcomes for the kids. It's very easy to correlate the % of kids with single parents with the % of kids going on to get a criminal record, it's much harder to model the cumulative effects of living in a relatively rough neighbourhood, having a neddy name instead of being called Jim or Sarah, what that does to your chances of getting past an HR sift, bank loan application, time with an elected representative etc. Your mum raises you alone because your dad's more likely to not be on the scene because of a whole host of things that simply do not apply to middle class people. But the middle class people are only exposed to this when they have an unpleasant interaction so they vote for people who are 'tough' on these people when they should vote for people who will actually radically change society so all these little measurable and unmeasurable things that add up to worse life chances for folk in one postcode but not another stop being so influential.

I agree to an extent and this is one of the reasons I said that blm protests and short term fixes were good but won't fix the long term societal issues that you mention.
Poverty and postcode lottery does matter a bit and this was highlighted with the exam algorithm fiasco.
I reckon though that although its harder that it is possible to make the right choices despite disadvantages.
Do you agree though that if somehow all the kids had a stable home with two parents then this would be a better thing for society in general?

[Hedgecutter]

23 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

Was it Abraham or Noah that allegedly tried to drunkenly shag his own son? 

No, no, no... it was Noah's son that allegedly tried to shag his drunk dad.  Abraham on the other hand married and shagged his half-sister. 

Nice bunch. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Hedgecutter

[D.A.F.C]

No, no, no... it was Noah's son that allegedly tried to shag his drunk dad.  Abraham on the other hand married and shagged his half-sister. 
Nice bunch. 

No wonder he fucked off with all the animals.

[ICTChris]

Looking at the bare figures, single parent families have worse outcomes than those with two parents but you can't just look at the numbers and say "this is the reason".  Maybe it's the reverse that people who are poorer tend to be in single parent families?  There's also big variations in these families - I know people who have separated parents who have great relationships with both and also know peoples whose parents (usually fathers to be fair) completely disappeared from their life or were never involved at all.  That's going to give a wide variety of experience and outcome for the children.

I also remember reading about this discussion regarding African Americans and one recent study found that where families had been recorded as anarchic or chaotic they were actually a lot more of a colaborative effort - while fathers may not have been present children had closer relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc.  Obviously in this area studies aren't definitive but it was interesting.

[The Moonster]

55 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Do you agree though that if somehow all the kids had a stable home with two parents then this would be a better thing for society in general?
 

In the same vein, if every household had a decent income and were able to provide opportunities to the kids, would it be a better thing for society?

We can do something about the income poor families get, we can't do anything about single parents existing.

[D.A.F.C]

In the same vein, if every household had a decent income and were able to provide opportunities to the kids, would it be a better thing for society?
We can do something about the income poor families get, we can't do anything about single parents existing.

I agree that poverty and better opportunities for all is the way forward and also that even with that then sometimes things happen.
Poverty is usually the route cause of most issues tbh.
Like I said my view on an old fashioned family structure seems unpopular nowadays despite evidence to show that without it things are more likely to go wrong for kids.
To flip it around whats wrong with women or men staying at home looking after kids as a full time job? Full time mummy types are also shamed on this thread, its probably one of the most important jobs someone can do yet people are told they can somehow do both successfully despite thousands of years worth of history telling us that you can't.

[The Moonster]

5 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

I agree that poverty and better opportunities for all is the way forward and also that even with that then sometimes things happen.
Poverty is usually the route cause of most issues tbh.
Like I said my view on an old fashioned family structure seems unpopular nowadays despite evidence to show that without it things are more likely to go wrong for kids.
To flip it around whats wrong with women or men staying at home looking after kids as a full time job? Full time mummy types are also shamed on this thread, its probably one of the most important jobs someone can do yet people are told they can somehow do both successfully despite thousands of years worth of history telling us that you can't.

Your view is borne out of religion though. The whole "married then kids" thought process is because people thought they would end up in hell if they had kids without being married by the hand of god. Any move away from that mind set by society has to be seen as a good thing.

Things go wrong because of other things, mainly resources and opportunities. I just can't agree that two parents are vital for a kid, and I say that as someone who really couldn't have asked for two better parents to raise me.

I don't see any problem with a man or woman staying at home full time, if people can do that then that's great. 

[scottmcleanscontacts]

well, again I'd probably lump all of that including being raised in a single parent household as a symptom of a more insidious structural issue than a cause in itself of worse outcomes for the kids. It's very easy to correlate the % of kids with single parents with the % of kids going on to get a criminal record, it's much harder to model the cumulative effects of living in a relatively rough neighbourhood, having a neddy name instead of being called Jim or Sarah, what that does to your chances of getting past an HR sift, bank loan application, time with an elected representative etc. Your mum raises you alone because your dad's more likely to not be on the scene because of a whole host of things that simply do not apply to middle class people. But the middle class people are only exposed to this when they have an unpleasant interaction so they vote for people who are 'tough' on these people when they should vote for people who will actually radically change society so all these little measurable and unmeasurable things that add up to worse life chances for folk in one postcode but not another stop being so influential.

Amen.

[Shotgun]

Good to see the old school term “Politically Correct” reappearing after almost being completely replaced by “Offended” as the go-to defence word whenever someone disagrees with a conservative viewpoint. 

Anyway, on the topic of moral guidance from the holy babble, Abraham was also all set to murder his own son because the voices in his head told him to. This is apparently evidence that he was one of the good guys. 

[Shotgun]

1 hour ago, D.A.F.C said:

To flip it around whats wrong with women or men staying at home looking after kids as a full time job? Full time mummy types are also shamed on this thread, its probably one of the most important jobs someone can do yet people are told they can somehow do both successfully despite thousands of years worth of history telling us that you can't.

Self-proclaimed "Full-Time Mummies" aren't shamed for staying home to raise their own children. They're ridiculed for thinking they're deserving of sainthood for doing so. First of all, it's a job they choose. Secondly; plenty of other women (and men) have raised healthy, happy and successful children without the luxury of not having to earn a pay cheque at the same time.

[D.A.F.C]

Your view is borne out of religion though. The whole "married then kids" thought process is because people thought they would end up in hell if they had kids without being married by the hand of god. Any move away from that mind set by society has to be seen as a good thing.
Things go wrong because of other things, mainly resources and opportunities. I just can't agree that two parents are vital for a kid, and I say that as someone who really couldn't have asked for two better parents to raise me.
I don't see any problem with a man or woman staying at home full time, if people can do that then that's great. 

I'm not religious but I would say that I see marriage as generally a good thing and maybe as people are more self centred these days they tend to not commit or do less selfless things.
Dont agree with all the religious mumbo jumbo but its a decent foundation thats pretty much worked for centuries.
Disagree that people thought they would go to hell or were scared, most did it for positive reasons.
In the last half century things have changed really quickly and judge for yourself if you think society is happier, healthier and more stable now.

[coprolite]

I think stay at home parenting should be discouraged because my wife is a lazy cow and is starting to rip the piss now. Also disapprove of marriage for much the same reasons.