Dude. Are you TRYING to be offensive?

Family structure and the lack of paternal involvement are predictive of juvenile delinquency. The more opportunities a child has to interact with his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). In a study of female inmates, more than half came from a father-absent home (Snell, Tracy, & Morton, 1991). Youths who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates (Hill, O'Neill, 1993), while youths in father-only households display no difference in the rate of incarceration from that of children coming from two-parent households (Harper and McLanahan, 2004). In addition, children who come from father-absent homes are at a greater risk for using illicit substances at a younger age (Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2004). The absence of a father in a child's life may also increase the odds of his or her associating with delinquent peers (Steinberg, 1987).

http://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=industry%20news&id=54:father-absent-homes-implications-for-criminal-justice-and-mental-health-professionals


They find that boys who grew up in families in the bottom 10 percent of the income distributionfamilies earning less than about $14,000are 20 times more likely to be in prison on a given day in their early 30s than children born to the wealthiest familiesthose earning more than $143,000. The authors estimate that almost one in ten boys born to lowest income families are incarcerated at age 30 and make up about 27 percent of prisoners at that age.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-after-incarceration/

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Family structure and the lack of paternal involvement are predictive of juvenile delinquency. The more opportunities a child has to interact with his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). In a study of female inmates, more than half came from a father-absent home (Snell, Tracy, & Morton, 1991). Youths who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates (Hill, O'Neill, 1993), while youths in father-only households display no difference in the rate of incarceration from that of children coming from two-parent households (Harper and McLanahan, 2004). In addition, children who come from father-absent homes are at a greater risk for using illicit substances at a younger age (Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2004). The absence of a father in a child's life may also increase the odds of his or her associating with delinquent peers (Steinberg, 1987).

http://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=industry%20news&id=54:father-absent-homes-implications-for-criminal-justice-and-mental-health-professionals


They find that boys who grew up in families in the bottom 10 percent of the income distributionfamilies earning less than about $14,000are 20 times more likely to be in prison on a given day in their early 30s than children born to the wealthiest familiesthose earning more than $143,000. The authors estimate that almost one in ten boys born to lowest income families are incarcerated at age 30 and make up about 27 percent of prisoners at that age.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-after-incarceration/

---

There's a correlation. But there's a STRONGER correlation to poverty. When you're in a single-parent home, you're -almost by definition- going to have half the household income. Studies before the mid 1990's often did not take that into account (and many since still do not).

You literally said in your post above that single family homes are a stronger predictor, I'm going to wade through your sources, but I sincerely doubt that will be the case here and from the preliminary perusal, it doesn't.

But I may be surprised. I'll give it a look in the morning.

But either case, you're not discounting the case that I've already showed with over 75 studies above that children who have two same-gender parents are no less successful than those that have mixed gender parents.

(That was the post you dismissed out of hand and said to "mark you down as a bigot" because you weren't going to read it. "Bigot" was your word, not mine, btw. )

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

you didn't. But it fits well with the laundry list of items I listed that are now acceptable.

I noticed you said two parents. Do you believe that, on average, a child has a better chance being raised by a) two moms b) two dads c) one mom and one dad in the same home?
Why did you answer as you did?

---

Available data says there are more important factors indicating future success than the number of parents. For instance, income is MUCH more closely correlated to success than just having two parents in the house.

I said two parents because that's what I meant. There is pretty much no data suggesting two moms or two dads or a mom and grandma, etc make you end up better or "worse." Especially when success is so incredibly subjective.

Same-sex parent units show no negative effects on their children. I was reading a few months ago how, out of 79 studies on this 75 show no difference between same sex parents and mixed sex parents (and the four outliers had serious sampling issues).

I can try and find that if you want.

---

There's tons of data that show that the 2 biological parents married and together with their children is the optimal environment.

---

This idea that there has to be a man and a woman raising a child in a house together is simply not backed up by any respected science.

---

^^^ God help us all when this group that believes this crap starts running things

---

You think there has to be a man and a woman?

---

again not addressed to me. On average, a man cannot provide everything a woman can and the other way around.

---

So, are you saying that there has to be a man and a woman? Yes or no?

I know how Florda feels. He can't help but share.

Second question: what are these "things" that constitute what "a man cannot provide everything a woman can and the other way around?"

---

Jack provided a good response above. I use the wording "on average " for a reason and I believe you're intelligent enough to know that.

You're also intelligent enough to think of things you learned from your mom that you didn't learn from dad and from dad that you didn't learn from mom.

---

don't go around talking about my intelligence. It'll make Mike mad.

But you should notice that I've never once said that traditional nuclear families are bad, or not ideal. I have literally never said that.

All of this is leading to my original problem with some posters' intimation that having same-sex parents and just being accepting of that, is leading to our society's downfall. I think that's a little overwrought.

---

If something is ideal, than that means something else is less than ideal. The more you reduce ideal and replace it with less than ideal the closer you get to the point you called downfall. I didn't say it gets us there nor did you. But if were do things, at an increased rate, that move us closer to that point, that is leading.

---

Well now you're being reductive. As we've agreed, there are MANY factors that go into raising a child. Parenting doesn't just happen between a mom and dad. There are many factors that are more closely correlated to success. If your two moms are wealthy, love you, care for you, listen to you, can provide for your medical and aspirational needs, you're going to be MILES ahead of a kid raised by a mom and dad who is all the same as the above, but the dad likes to get a little frisky with little boys like you.

There are so many factors that go into raising a child, and as a parent, I'm not so self-important to think that my girls will shrivel and die on the vine if I die. They're strong. They will move on.

So like I said. It's optimal to use super unleaded fuel in my car, it's optimal that my oil be replaced every 5,000 miles. But it's a system of things. And no one is entirely more important than others.

---

Suppose your wife and you die, would you be fine with 2 openly gay men raising them, taking them to school plays while holding hands and the like. Two openly gay men raising your kids would be ok as long as they're wealthy? You think that's same as you and your wife?

Also, get synthetic oil and change it every 7000! More eco friendly(you guys love that!) and better on vehicles

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Family structure and the lack of paternal involvement are predictive of juvenile delinquency. The more opportunities a child has to interact with his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). In a study of female inmates, more than half came from a father-absent home (Snell, Tracy, & Morton, 1991). Youths who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates (Hill, O'Neill, 1993), while youths in father-only households display no difference in the rate of incarceration from that of children coming from two-parent households (Harper and McLanahan, 2004). In addition, children who come from father-absent homes are at a greater risk for using illicit substances at a younger age (Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2004). The absence of a father in a child's life may also increase the odds of his or her associating with delinquent peers (Steinberg, 1987).

http://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=industry%20news&id=54:father-absent-homes-implications-for-criminal-justice-and-mental-health-professionals


They find that boys who grew up in families in the bottom 10 percent of the income distributionfamilies earning less than about $14,000are 20 times more likely to be in prison on a given day in their early 30s than children born to the wealthiest familiesthose earning more than $143,000. The authors estimate that almost one in ten boys born to lowest income families are incarcerated at age 30 and make up about 27 percent of prisoners at that age.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-after-incarceration/

---

I've been part of a prison ministry, for men, in our state prisons for approximately 20 years. I've never done a study but I assumed inmates came from fatherless homes > 50% fwiw

Seems I rarely hear inmate speak favorably of a good father in their home while they were growing up.

Just saying .....

Florda_mike said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Family structure and the lack of paternal involvement are predictive of juvenile delinquency. The more opportunities a child has to interact with his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). In a study of female inmates, more than half came from a father-absent home (Snell, Tracy, & Morton, 1991). Youths who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates (Hill, O'Neill, 1993), while youths in father-only households display no difference in the rate of incarceration from that of children coming from two-parent households (Harper and McLanahan, 2004). In addition, children who come from father-absent homes are at a greater risk for using illicit substances at a younger age (Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2004). The absence of a father in a child's life may also increase the odds of his or her associating with delinquent peers (Steinberg, 1987).

http://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=industry%20news&id=54:father-absent-homes-implications-for-criminal-justice-and-mental-health-professionals


They find that boys who grew up in families in the bottom 10 percent of the income distributionfamilies earning less than about $14,000are 20 times more likely to be in prison on a given day in their early 30s than children born to the wealthiest familiesthose earning more than $143,000. The authors estimate that almost one in ten boys born to lowest income families are incarcerated at age 30 and make up about 27 percent of prisoners at that age.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-after-incarceration/

---

I've been part of a prison ministry, for men, in our state prisons for approximately 20 years. I've never done a study but I assumed inmates came from fatherless homes > 50% fwiw

Seems I rarely hear inmate speak favorably of a good father in their home while they were growing up.

Just saying .....

---

Good on you. Prison ministries do a terrific job of reducing recidivism.

2018 - the year when Democrats can say literally anything about Trump. Embarrassing

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Family structure and the lack of paternal involvement are predictive of juvenile delinquency. The more opportunities a child has to interact with his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). In a study of female inmates, more than half came from a father-absent home (Snell, Tracy, & Morton, 1991). Youths who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates (Hill, O'Neill, 1993), while youths in father-only households display no difference in the rate of incarceration from that of children coming from two-parent households (Harper and McLanahan, 2004). In addition, children who come from father-absent homes are at a greater risk for using illicit substances at a younger age (Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2004). The absence of a father in a child's life may also increase the odds of his or her associating with delinquent peers (Steinberg, 1987).

http://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=industry%20news&id=54:father-absent-homes-implications-for-criminal-justice-and-mental-health-professionals


They find that boys who grew up in families in the bottom 10 percent of the income distributionfamilies earning less than about $14,000are 20 times more likely to be in prison on a given day in their early 30s than children born to the wealthiest familiesthose earning more than $143,000. The authors estimate that almost one in ten boys born to lowest income families are incarcerated at age 30 and make up about 27 percent of prisoners at that age.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-after-incarceration/

---

I've been part of a prison ministry, for men, in our state prisons for approximately 20 years. I've never done a study but I assumed inmates came from fatherless homes > 50% fwiw

Seems I rarely hear inmate speak favorably of a good father in their home while they were growing up.

Just saying .....

---

Good on you. Prison ministries do a terrific job of reducing recidivism.

---

a thread on what works and doesn't work for improving recidivism would be interesting. I used to think for profit prisons were a great thing. Now not so much.

Please don't use the to detail a good thread. I'll start another.

Disgraceful. I hope liberals are happy w/ their new illegal voters at the expense of Dead American Citizens.

Seriously, how many people must die for you to take it seriously?

Happy Saturnalia.

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

---

and you are being at least as dishonest when you can't see what was formerly extreme is now mainstream or quickly headed to mainstream.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

---

and you are being at least as dishonest when you can't see what was formerly extreme is now mainstream or quickly headed to mainstream.

---

As a local example.....

Despite the protests of dozens of parents.....

2 drag queens , dressed in lingerie , have been given permission by our little library board to provide 'story time' to 3-8 year old kids .

It is beyond all reason .

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

---

This is a thread of stories about culture compiled over the last year to make a broader point. I never said one story by itself is the mainstream view.

Are you this dramatic about everything in your life?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

---

How is this not mainstream? Kids now get out for Winter break and not Christmas break (as an example). Why the name change? Because not everyone celebrates it and expressed such. The woman is only expressing what's reflected in the secular rigidity of the public square. I'm not offended she's mad, nor am I shocked at her attitude. It's the day and age we live in. I just wish people wouldn't go gripe about it on Twitter, and have the courage of conviction to address it to the person/people directly.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

---

and you are being at least as dishonest when you can't see what was formerly extreme is now mainstream or quickly headed to mainstream.

---

You think THIS idea is mainstream?

Canada2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

---

and you are being at least as dishonest when you can't see what was formerly extreme is now mainstream or quickly headed to mainstream.

---

As a local example.....

Despite the protests of dozens of parents.....

2 drag queens , dressed in lingerie , have been given permission by our little library board to provide 'story time' to 3-8 year old kids .

It is beyond all reason .

---

In lingerie? Really?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

You seem to really enjoy taking extreme examples and passing them off as mainstream to defend your sense of old-guy greviance.

It's as lame as it is intellectually dishonest.

---

and you are being at least as dishonest when you can't see what was formerly extreme is now mainstream or quickly headed to mainstream.

---

As a local example.....

Despite the protests of dozens of parents.....

2 drag queens , dressed in lingerie , have been given permission by our little library board to provide 'story time' to 3-8 year old kids .

It is beyond all reason .

---

In lingerie? Really?

---

Hummm???

riflebear said:

---

---

Bro. You HAVE to start fact-checking.

This dude was NOT a CNN writer, but a German language writer. Hasn't won anything since 2015, and never invented any stories about Trump.

You need to fact check and get out of your echo chamber.

I get you're solid into your "old man anger/gerviance" territory because you've bought into the lies of a swindler and worst president in American history thanks to your tribalism, but you still have time to see the light.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/20/blog-posting/fired-cnn-journalist-year-was-not-jim-acosta-or-an/

Preach it Brother.

Now here is something we can all agree is ruining America.

https://www.countryliving.com/shopping/a25633668/ankle-scarves-winter-fashion-trend/

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Bro. You HAVE to start fact-checking.

This dude was NOT a CNN writer, but a German language writer. Hasn't won anything since 2015, and never invented any stories about Trump.

You need to fact check and get out of your echo chamber.

I get you're solid into your "old man anger/gerviance" territory because you've bought into the lies of a swindler and worst president in American history thanks to your tribalism, but you still have time to see the light.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/20/blog-posting/fired-cnn-journalist-year-was-not-jim-acosta-or-an/

---

Bro? How do you know I'm a guy and that is demanding in this gender neutral society to call me a Bro. I'm very offended. Wow, I feel dirty just talking like a liberal. How do you all do it and live like that everyday.

Anyway, I wouldn't say that was False. It IS a journalist CNN Voted "journalist of the year". And he DID LIE AND MISLEAD in 14 articles. You might want to fact check your own fact checks. My post had nothing to do w/ Acosta nor did anyone think it was him, it was someone who won CNN's award back in 2014.

Listen to yourself. You're so entrenched you're trying to defend a guy who literally just lied to YOU and made you look like an idiot and you're getting mad at ME for it.

If that doesn't sum up Trump supporters right now, nothing will.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen to yourself. You're so entrenched you're trying to defend a guy who literally just lied to YOU and made you look like an idiot and you're getting mad at ME for it.

If that doesn't sum up Trump supporters right now, nothing will.

---

How did he lie? That was CNN's 2014 "Journalist of the Year" winner.

Again, you believe lies everyday from MSNBC & CNN but don't think twice about it. You all literally move on from every liberal lie as long as it hurts Trump don't think twice about it, but you are trying to challenge me on this and lump all Trump supporters into a box because of this tweet? Trump is living in your head and having a blast...

Oops - even liberal Washington Post agrees...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/21/german-reporters-dispatch-trump-country-featured-mexicans-keep-out-sign-he-made-it-all-up/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.68d5611ef876

A reporter's dispatch from Trump country featured a 'Mexicans Keep Out' sign. But he made it all up.

Again, pretty much everything in my original tweet is true.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cnn-journalist-of-the-year-peddles-fake-story-about-trumps-america-resigns-2018-12-20

"I am sick and I need to get help," he told Der Spiegel. "It wasn't because of the next big thing. It was fear of failing. My pressure to not be able to fail got ever bigger the more successful I became."

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Bro. You HAVE to start fact-checking.

This dude was NOT a CNN writer, but a German language writer. Hasn't won anything since 2015, and never invented any stories about Trump.

You need to fact check and get out of your echo chamber.

I get you're solid into your "old man anger/gerviance" territory because you've bought into the lies of a swindler and worst president in American history thanks to your tribalism, but you still have time to see the light.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/20/blog-posting/fired-cnn-journalist-year-was-not-jim-acosta-or-an/

---

You're basing this all on politifact which is talking about something completely different than my post. No one is talking about Acosta and the tweet isn't even about him. I never saw him and my original tweet posted from Trump Jr didn't even talk about. They all knew it wasn't Acosta or that would have been on news 24/7 for a week.

You are using that politifact article that isn't talking about anything I posted but something entirely different. They even said it was half true except for the Acosta part which again had nothing to do w/ my post.

I'll wait for your apology after you went on a long rant about Trump supporters that literally just blew up in your face. Next time you cause me of not reading something, you might want to read it first.

Wow, what a waist of 15 min researching that only to find out you are the one with egg on your face....AGAIN.
Thanks for confirming my post was 100% correct.

Can't wait to see how you spin yourself out of this one....

riflebear said:

---

---

CNN or BBC?

I have to check if it's posted by you.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Bro. You HAVE to start fact-checking.

This dude was NOT a CNN writer, but a German language writer. Hasn't won anything since 2015, and never invented any stories about Trump.

You need to fact check and get out of your echo chamber.

I get you're solid into your "old man anger/gerviance" territory because you've bought into the lies of a swindler and worst president in American history thanks to your tribalism, but you still have time to see the light.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/20/blog-posting/fired-cnn-journalist-year-was-not-jim-acosta-or-an/

---

maybe you should fact check... Trump not the worst president in history. Polling is limited at this point but shows him 4th out of all the presidents in the last 100 years. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama rank higher.

I'm still waiting on your reply on the other thread where I proved everything I said was correct (with sources).

You got strangely quiet.

Having trouble replying for some reason, wont let me quote you... i come to this forum for entertainment, didnt know you replied or even which thread that was... i have been busy this week saving an ex felons job after he damaged a piece of equipement that would cost more than 2 months pay to replace. That would make a sorry christmas for his family.

As of yesterday evening, he still has a job, got paid for this weeks work and is going to work off the damages with his boss over the next year.