paloalto on 28/1/2007 at 16:59
Even in a worst case scenario you can compare fatherless single parent households in that scenario with families that have a father and mother in that scenario.Thus negating the shitty social and economic climate that you speak of.
But as for the general population the exploding phenomena of single parents has not been around enough for any conclusive studies along all classes of society.Such things as delinquency,drug use,rate of school dropouts and violent behaviour would have to be looked at.
Of course your always going by averages since you can have the best scenario and have the kid turn out "rotten".
I think it is a little more complex than the competency of single parents.
Quote:
Supporting evidence please.
You know posing questions like this just weakens your argument and further shows that your an impatient idealist.
I'm not going through the tedium of linking to every major study since the 1950's on the importance of bonding with a mother and the effects it has on a child that pretty much has been embraced by psychologists and the social services.It probably woudn't do any good anyway.
SD on 28/1/2007 at 18:11
Quote Posted by paloalto
But as for the general population the exploding phenomena of single parents has not been around enough for any conclusive studies along all classes of society.
"Exploding phenomena" of single parents? Are we sure there are more one-parent families around these days? I'd venture a guess that there are a lot more divorces, but that far fewer parents are dying prematurely. Some sort of statistics on this would be welcome.
Quote:
You know posing questions like this just weakens your argument and further shows that your an impatient idealist.
failure to back
your opinion up with evidence weakens
my argument? Well, I... don't know how I can counter that one!
Quote:
I'm not going through the tedium of linking to every major study since the 1950's on the importance of bonding with a mother and the effects it has on a child that pretty much has been embraced by psychologists and the social services. It probably woudn't do any good anyway.
Oh no, trust me, it would do a lot of good. Even just one study? Pretty please? I linked to the ACLU report that showed no detrimental effect of homosexual adoption, the least you can do is provide something similar from the other side.
Aerothorn on 28/1/2007 at 18:20
Where'd God go?
SD on 28/1/2007 at 18:23
He might not feature prominently in this part of the discussion, but he's lingering in the background. Proponents and opponents of gay adoption can more or less be split down religious lines.
fett on 28/1/2007 at 19:01
This may shift the discussion a bit, but I think it ties in with the gay marriage/adoption issue to some degree. I'm still trying to sort out exactly how tolerance (the byword of the day so it seems) works out in a democracy where certain religious groups are intolerant. Here's what I mean:
When I was a believer, I disagreed with the worldview and philosophy of Islam, Wicca, Atheism, etc. but I wouldn't say I was 'intolerant' of them. I had a pretty good grasp on the fact that America by definition is a live and let live society, within the bounds of the law. It seems the Christian Right have definitely taken an intolerant view of homosexuality, and as those of you who are atheists know, your views are rarely 'tolerated' either - at least socially speaking. Doesn't being tolerant encompass tolerating those who are intolerant of you and your views? I hope that's clear -I'm still trying to work that out for myself.
There's obviously no way to give every religion (or lack thereof) equal time, and right now it seems that liberal entertainment and conservative politics/religion are the only groups getting a piece of the pie. So how do you live in a state of tolerating those who are intolerant of you, without becoming intolerant yourself? I ask mainly because the hostility of someone like Dawkins make him seem intolerant (maybe he isn't ashamed to admit that?) - the very thing he's accusing christians of (and vice-versa).
I doubt any of that made sense... :(
Dr Sneak on 28/1/2007 at 19:32
'Tolerance' is a myth. People's ideas will always clash-as for Dawkins, he's just a
RL troll that isn't worth paying attention to.
Sees Fett's location-Dude WTF?:o
SD on 28/1/2007 at 19:54
Tolerance isn't a myth, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideas clashing or people disagreeing with each other.
Dawkins disagrees with belief in God, but he's still tolerant because he wouldn't for one minute seek to forcibly prevent people from believing in God if they freely desire to do so. In the same way, many evangelical Christians are intolerant, because not only do they believe that abortion, homosexual intercourse, sex outside marriage etc etc are wrong, but they also seek to force those opinions on everyone else by influencing legislators to outlaw those things.
So far as him being a "RL troll" is concerned, if educating people out of anachronistic belief systems and towards modern views is trolling, then you can probably label most scientists that way. He just wants people to examine the evidence and question their beliefs using critical thinking.
Far from provoking a negative reaction, he want to provoke a positive reaction. No doubt he accepts that the things he writes will be received negatively by some people, but that's not the same as doing something specifically to piss people off.
jay pettitt on 28/1/2007 at 21:19
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
So, are you saying that you're opposed to a hermaphrodite adopting a baby?
Well obviously hermaphrodites can't adopt, that'd be weird.
Uncia on 28/1/2007 at 21:31
Quote Posted by fett
It seems the Christian Right have definitely taken an intolerant view of homosexuality, and as those of you who are atheists know, your views are rarely 'tolerated' either - at least socially speaking. Doesn't being tolerant encompass tolerating those who are intolerant of you and your views? I hope that's clear -I'm still trying to work that out for myself.
You can tolerate their opinions, but be intolerant of their actions.
Basically, the same way the law works/should work. As long as you don't physically break a certain set of rules you can believe whatever you want to believe. Cross the line? Well now, welcome to the real world, may we have your profile shot please?
Papy on 28/1/2007 at 23:19
Strontium Dog : Do you think the book could still be interesting for a strong atheist who spent too much time on alt.atheism in the 90s ? Or is it just for theist ?
BTW, I don't remember who said it in this thread, but like him, I'm in the group of people who think : I don't care what other people believe. If God is what they need to find happiness, then I don't see why I should say anything (as long as I can live my life in a way I find acceptable). I'm not a preacher. I think God is just an easy way out, but not everybody is strong enough to face the very harsh and very cold "reality". Particularly the reality of death. If they doubt their belief and seek someone to show them another "way", I'm there. Otherwise, I just shut up.
Dr Sneak : I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem with two guys having sex together as long as they don't try to "play" with me. Tolerance does not imply unity. Differences does not make tolerance a myth.
Jay pettitt : Why would it be weird ? Why what you have between your legs should make any difference ?
Uncia : I call this playing with words. It's like saying the KKK are not a racist organization because they tolerate black persons... In Africa.
