Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (1 Viewer)

[matttyl]

As for your experience and how it relates to the bigger picture- would the world be a better place if more people had two awesome parents? Sure, of course. So what? Single parenthood is a symptom of a problem, not an isolated problem. This goes back to my whole rant about the difference between demanding accountability in individuals (fine and dandy) and expecting it across large segments of the population (pointless and absurd).

I disagree, I feel it is very much as isolated problem. But for the sake of argument, lets say I agree that it's a symptom of a larger problem - what is that larger problem?

I don't follow your argument here at all, sorry. What exactly are you saying with respect to black people in America and single parenthood? What do you think is the reason for the high rate of children born out of wedlock, if not external forces?

You know what I think, I've said it multiple times. The oft-cited 70% figure is a function of a variety of forces, primarily (1) across the board reductions in marriage rates and birth rates in marriage skewing the % even though birth rates (the far more important figure because it isolates the statistic) for unmarried black women are actually on a long and steady decline, and (2) poverty, incarceration and death making a large % of black men less than ideal marriage candidates.

But apparently you disagree with this? If so, what do you think?

Again, birth rates aren't nearly as important as you're attempting to make them. We went over this yesterday - case in point the black population grew by 40% in the 20 years from 1990 to 2010 even with a declining birth rate, and at the same time was making up larger and larger % of the total US population (again, during a time of a declining birth rate). The statistic is that there are roughly 1.6M black children born out of wedlock per year today, roughly 3 times the actual number of the same from 50 years ago. That's the "isolated statistic." With mortality rates being what they are from a group of people that's only ~50m, we could easily see a situation where 2/3rds of the entire black population in this country was born out of wedlock in the next 2 decades.

As for your "across the board reductions in marriage", that's not really true either. It's roughly twice as likely today than it was in 1960 for white and Latino individuals to not marry, but 4 times as likely for blacks.

As to your point 2) so you're saying that poverty, incarceration and death makes black males less than ideal marriage candidates, but more than fine to have 1.6m children a year with? Shouldn't those two be connected? I mean, if a guy is poor, in jail, or dead and thus you don't want to marry, then why (or in the case of death, how) are you having kids with them?

As for what I think is the reason - lots of things, and honestly if I knew what it was I wouldn't be doing what I do. Some thoughts - It's brought on itself (child without a 2 parent household more likely have to have children out of wedlock themselves). Being easier to acquire different forms of welfare when a single parent. Seeing it in their own communities. Regardless of what the reason or reasons are, this is likely a problem/symptom where you don't need to know the reason to come up with a solution. What do you think a good solution would be?

Because people like to ####, and sometimes they don't use protection. Do you really not know that? I think you probably know that.

No ###. I think you've found a root cause to this symptom/problem. Moreover, why is so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Regardless, what's your solution?

This is yet another instance of me actually putting some time into a post and backing it up with information to attempt to have a serious conversation with you about an issue and you come back with this type of response.

I also find it terribly funny that just yesterday you didn't understand what a "birth rate" really meant and how to apply it, and today you feel it's "the far more important figure."

Why is ####ing out of wedlock so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Really?

The answer is that it's not. Or at least I think that's probably way down the list of reasons for the disparity. Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

I'm not treating your posts on this whole "black kids being born out of wedlock are the problem!" thing seriously because I think it's pointless. First, I think the premise that two-parent families make a huge difference is mostly nonsense. Having two parents probably helps children a little bit, but most of the data shows correlation, not causation. Second, to the extent that it is a problem, there are already some obvious solutions that I would fully support. Increased funding for sex education for poorer areas of the country. Easy access to birth control in those areas. Unfettered access to abortions and financial assistance to those who seek them but can't afford them. Reform of our ridiculous drug laws so we stop incarcerating potential husbands for victimless crimes. There you go, problem solved. Is that gonna end unfair treatment of the black community by law enforcement? Is if going to put them on equal footing when it comes to financial opportunity?

Finally- yesterday I misread a post about raw birth numbers and cited birth rates instead. I apologized for it. I understand the difference between the two. Stop being a smug ####### about it.

You can not be serious.

I agree, I think we're done here.

 

[James Daulton]

Why is ####ing out of wedlock so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Really?

The answer is that it's not. Or at least I think that's probably way down the list of reasons for the disparity. Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

I'm not treating your posts on this whole "black kids being born out of wedlock are the problem!" thing seriously because I think it's pointless. First, I think the premise that two-parent families make a huge difference is mostly nonsense. Having two parents probably helps children a little bit, but most of the data shows correlation, not causation. Second, to the extent that it is a problem, there are already some obvious solutions that I would fully support. Increased funding for sex education for poorer areas of the country. Easy access to birth control in those areas. Unfettered access to abortions and financial assistance to those who seek them but can't afford them. Reform of our ridiculous drug laws so we stop incarcerating potential husbands for victimless crimes. There you go, problem solved. Is that gonna end unfair treatment of the black community by law enforcement? Is if going to put them on equal footing when it comes to financial opportunity?

Finally- yesterday I misread a post about raw birth numbers and cited birth rates instead. I apologized for it. I understand the difference between the two. Stop being a smug ####### about it.

You can not be serious.

I think it matters- as the rest of the post indicates- but I think my colleague here is vastly overstating its importance.

Here's a good link to explain my perspective. Yes, it matters, but it's impossible to isolate the fact that you have two parents from other factors associated with two-parent households that also have a positive effect on children- more money, older parents, parents more inclined to be active in child-rearing, etc. Bottom line:

Making single parents get married, in other words, won't fundamentally change the other characteristics about them that really drive their children's success. The good news in this is that family income and parenting skills are more realistically addressed through public policy than marriage anyway.

This may well deserve it's own thread, it's a pretty interesting subject. I would suggest to the bolded above, that by waiting until marriage to have kids, and even actually getting married, a lot of the characteristics we all seem to agree are favorable will be present as well.

Interesting discussion.

 

[cstu]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

 

[Cjw_55106]

- Both her parents were cops. Also her grandfather and her Uncle were cops.

Probably Uncle Tom, amiright?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

haven't read this whole thread....but saw something about another prisoner in the van reporting that he thought it sounded like Gray was trying to injure himself.....

I just wonder about the public reaction if the investigation shows that it wasn't police violence that contributed/caused death but self inflicted injury and/or lack of proper restraint.....seems to me there is a difference between excessive force and negligence (lack of use of proper restraints) that allows someone to injure them self...

 

[Swing 51]

haven't read this whole thread

Why not?

 

[General Tso]

What are the odds in Vegas that Moseby will bring charges against her "cousins"?

She's got cousins on both sides.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

There's no doubt that it's very difficult. There's also no doubt, IMO, that doing a good job rather than a bad job matters very much in a number of important ways -- the child's happiness, etc.

But there's some evidence that doing a good job rather than a bad job (within reason) doesn't really affect ultimate outcomes in objectively measurable ways, such as the likelihood of being arrested as an adult, the likelihood of being employed as an adult, income level as an adult, etc. There are surface correlations with all those things, but they arguably disappear when you control for other factors such as genetics. It's inherently complicated, though.

 

[cstu]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

There's no doubt that it's very difficult. There's also no doubt, IMO, that doing a good job rather than a bad job matters very much in a number of important ways -- the child's happiness, etc.

But there's some evidence that doing a good job rather than a bad job (within reason) doesn't really affect ultimate outcomes in objectively measurable ways, such as the likelihood of being arrested as an adult, the likelihood of being employed as an adult, income level as an adult, etc. There are surface correlations with all those things, but they arguably disappear when you control for other factors such as genetics. It's inherently complicated, though.

I found the Nurture Assumption very interesting because it contradicts the 'common sense' belief that parents have the biggest impact on their children's lives.

If Harris is correct that peers have a larger impact than parents on a child's outcome, then a 'good' parent would be someone who surrounds their child with quality peers.

 

[Jack White]

Mayor of Baltimore is delusional. Thinks the best way to "serve Baltimore" is to go to law school then immediately run for office.

 

[Passenger]

As for your experience and how it relates to the bigger picture- would the world be a better place if more people had two awesome parents? Sure, of course. So what? Single parenthood is a symptom of a problem, not an isolated problem. This goes back to my whole rant about the difference between demanding accountability in individuals (fine and dandy) and expecting it across large segments of the population (pointless and absurd).

I disagree, I feel it is very much as isolated problem. But for the sake of argument, lets say I agree that it's a symptom of a larger problem - what is that larger problem?

I don't follow your argument here at all, sorry. What exactly are you saying with respect to black people in America and single parenthood? What do you think is the reason for the high rate of children born out of wedlock, if not external forces?

You know what I think, I've said it multiple times. The oft-cited 70% figure is a function of a variety of forces, primarily (1) across the board reductions in marriage rates and birth rates in marriage skewing the % even though birth rates (the far more important figure because it isolates the statistic) for unmarried black women are actually on a long and steady decline, and (2) poverty, incarceration and death making a large % of black men less than ideal marriage candidates.

But apparently you disagree with this? If so, what do you think?

Again, birth rates aren't nearly as important as you're attempting to make them. We went over this yesterday - case in point the black population grew by 40% in the 20 years from 1990 to 2010 even with a declining birth rate, and at the same time was making up larger and larger % of the total US population (again, during a time of a declining birth rate). The statistic is that there are roughly 1.6M black children born out of wedlock per year today, roughly 3 times the actual number of the same from 50 years ago. That's the "isolated statistic." With mortality rates being what they are from a group of people that's only ~50m, we could easily see a situation where 2/3rds of the entire black population in this country was born out of wedlock in the next 2 decades.As for your "across the board reductions in marriage", that's not really true either. It's roughly twice as likely today than it was in 1960 for white and Latino individuals to not marry, but 4 times as likely for blacks.

As to your point 2) so you're saying that poverty, incarceration and death makes black males less than ideal marriage candidates, but more than fine to have 1.6m children a year with? Shouldn't those two be connected? I mean, if a guy is poor, in jail, or dead and thus you don't want to marry, then why (or in the case of death, how) are you having kids with them?

As for what I think is the reason - lots of things, and honestly if I knew what it was I wouldn't be doing what I do. Some thoughts - It's brought on itself (child without a 2 parent household more likely have to have children out of wedlock themselves). Being easier to acquire different forms of welfare when a single parent. Seeing it in their own communities. Regardless of what the reason or reasons are, this is likely a problem/symptom where you don't need to know the reason to come up with a solution. What do you think a good solution would be?

Because people like to ####, and sometimes they don't use protection. Do you really not know that? I think you probably know that.

Ooops! I really like to #### but I can't afford the consequences of my actions. Sorry 'bout ya. Good thing the government has my back.

 

[Parrothead]

Mayor of Baltimore is delusional. Thinks the best way to "serve Baltimore" is to go to law school then immediately run for office.

she is adorable

 

[Passenger]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

Now imagine if you didn't enjoy your kid's existence but for the check that came every month. Now how hard is it to raise the kid?

 

[Cjw_55106]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

Now imagine if you didn't enjoy your kid's existence but for the check that came every month. Now how hard is it to raise the kid?

Thas kind of a stretch IMO.

 

[Passenger]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

Now imagine if you didn't enjoy your kid's existence but for the check that came every month. Now how hard is it to raise the kid?

Thas kind of a stretch IMO.

I'm sure you and yours sleep very well at night knowing you could never fathom that level of irresponsibility, but it happens.

 

[Two Deep]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

There's no doubt that it's very difficult. There's also no doubt, IMO, that doing a good job rather than a bad job matters very much in a number of important ways -- the child's happiness, etc.

But there's some evidence that doing a good job rather than a bad job (within reason) doesn't really affect ultimate outcomes in objectively measurable ways, such as the likelihood of being arrested as an adult, the likelihood of being employed as an adult, income level as an adult, etc. There are surface correlations with all those things, but they arguably disappear when you control for other factors such as genetics. It's inherently complicated, though.

I found the Nurture Assumption very interesting because it contradicts the 'common sense' belief that parents have the biggest impact on their children's lives.

If Harris is correct that peers have a larger impact than parents on a child's outcome, then a 'good' parent would be someone who surrounds their child with quality peers.

Have a very good friend who was a gang member back in the day in Long Beach. He said the hardest part of getting out or moving on was peer pressure. A person who tries to better themselves through education and or some kind of normal societal conformity is considered a sell-out and their peers turn their back on them.

 

[Two Deep]

Mayor of Baltimore is delusional. Thinks the best way to "serve Baltimore" is to go to law school then immediately run for office.

she is adorable

Especially when she wears the ball cap.

 

[Hang 10]

As for your experience and how it relates to the bigger picture- would the world be a better place if more people had two awesome parents? Sure, of course. So what? Single parenthood is a symptom of a problem, not an isolated problem. This goes back to my whole rant about the difference between demanding accountability in individuals (fine and dandy) and expecting it across large segments of the population (pointless and absurd).

I disagree, I feel it is very much as isolated problem. But for the sake of argument, lets say I agree that it's a symptom of a larger problem - what is that larger problem?

I don't follow your argument here at all, sorry. What exactly are you saying with respect to black people in America and single parenthood? What do you think is the reason for the high rate of children born out of wedlock, if not external forces?

You know what I think, I've said it multiple times. The oft-cited 70% figure is a function of a variety of forces, primarily (1) across the board reductions in marriage rates and birth rates in marriage skewing the % even though birth rates (the far more important figure because it isolates the statistic) for unmarried black women are actually on a long and steady decline, and (2) poverty, incarceration and death making a large % of black men less than ideal marriage candidates.

But apparently you disagree with this? If so, what do you think?

Again, birth rates aren't nearly as important as you're attempting to make them. We went over this yesterday - case in point the black population grew by 40% in the 20 years from 1990 to 2010 even with a declining birth rate, and at the same time was making up larger and larger % of the total US population (again, during a time of a declining birth rate). The statistic is that there are roughly 1.6M black children born out of wedlock per year today, roughly 3 times the actual number of the same from 50 years ago. That's the "isolated statistic." With mortality rates being what they are from a group of people that's only ~50m, we could easily see a situation where 2/3rds of the entire black population in this country was born out of wedlock in the next 2 decades.

As for your "across the board reductions in marriage", that's not really true either. It's roughly twice as likely today than it was in 1960 for white and Latino individuals to not marry, but 4 times as likely for blacks.

As to your point 2) so you're saying that poverty, incarceration and death makes black males less than ideal marriage candidates, but more than fine to have 1.6m children a year with? Shouldn't those two be connected? I mean, if a guy is poor, in jail, or dead and thus you don't want to marry, then why (or in the case of death, how) are you having kids with them?

As for what I think is the reason - lots of things, and honestly if I knew what it was I wouldn't be doing what I do. Some thoughts - It's brought on itself (child without a 2 parent household more likely have to have children out of wedlock themselves). Being easier to acquire different forms of welfare when a single parent. Seeing it in their own communities. Regardless of what the reason or reasons are, this is likely a problem/symptom where you don't need to know the reason to come up with a solution. What do you think a good solution would be?

Because people like to ####, and sometimes they don't use protection. Do you really not know that? I think you probably know that.

No ###. I think you've found a root cause to this symptom/problem. Moreover, why is so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Regardless, what's your solution?

This is yet another instance of me actually putting some time into a post and backing it up with information to attempt to have a serious conversation with you about an issue and you come back with this type of response.

I also find it terribly funny that just yesterday you didn't understand what a "birth rate" really meant and how to apply it, and today you feel it's "the far more important figure."

Why is ####ing out of wedlock so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Really?

The answer is that it's not. Or at least I think that's probably way down the list of reasons for the disparity. Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

I'm not treating your posts on this whole "black kids being born out of wedlock are the problem!" thing seriously because I think it's pointless. First, I think the premise that two-parent families make a huge difference is mostly nonsense. Having two parents probably helps children a little bit, but most of the data shows correlation, not causation. Second, to the extent that it is a problem, there are already some obvious solutions that I would fully support. Increased funding for sex education for poorer areas of the country. Easy access to birth control in those areas. Unfettered access to abortions and financial assistance to those who seek them but can't afford them. Reform of our ridiculous drug laws so we stop incarcerating potential husbands for victimless crimes. There you go, problem solved. Is that gonna end unfair treatment of the black community by law enforcement? Is if going to put them on equal footing when it comes to financial opportunity?

Finally- yesterday I misread a post about raw birth numbers and cited birth rates instead. I apologized for it. I understand the difference between the two. Stop being a smug ####### about it.

You can not be serious.

I agree, I think we're done here.

Yeah, stable home lives are overrated.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As for your experience and how it relates to the bigger picture- would the world be a better place if more people had two awesome parents? Sure, of course. So what? Single parenthood is a symptom of a problem, not an isolated problem. This goes back to my whole rant about the difference between demanding accountability in individuals (fine and dandy) and expecting it across large segments of the population (pointless and absurd).

I disagree, I feel it is very much as isolated problem. But for the sake of argument, lets say I agree that it's a symptom of a larger problem - what is that larger problem?

I don't follow your argument here at all, sorry. What exactly are you saying with respect to black people in America and single parenthood? What do you think is the reason for the high rate of children born out of wedlock, if not external forces?

You know what I think, I've said it multiple times. The oft-cited 70% figure is a function of a variety of forces, primarily (1) across the board reductions in marriage rates and birth rates in marriage skewing the % even though birth rates (the far more important figure because it isolates the statistic) for unmarried black women are actually on a long and steady decline, and (2) poverty, incarceration and death making a large % of black men less than ideal marriage candidates.

But apparently you disagree with this? If so, what do you think?

Again, birth rates aren't nearly as important as you're attempting to make them. We went over this yesterday - case in point the black population grew by 40% in the 20 years from 1990 to 2010 even with a declining birth rate, and at the same time was making up larger and larger % of the total US population (again, during a time of a declining birth rate). The statistic is that there are roughly 1.6M black children born out of wedlock per year today, roughly 3 times the actual number of the same from 50 years ago. That's the "isolated statistic." With mortality rates being what they are from a group of people that's only ~50m, we could easily see a situation where 2/3rds of the entire black population in this country was born out of wedlock in the next 2 decades.

As for your "across the board reductions in marriage", that's not really true either. It's roughly twice as likely today than it was in 1960 for white and Latino individuals to not marry, but 4 times as likely for blacks.

As to your point 2) so you're saying that poverty, incarceration and death makes black males less than ideal marriage candidates, but more than fine to have 1.6m children a year with? Shouldn't those two be connected? I mean, if a guy is poor, in jail, or dead and thus you don't want to marry, then why (or in the case of death, how) are you having kids with them?

As for what I think is the reason - lots of things, and honestly if I knew what it was I wouldn't be doing what I do. Some thoughts - It's brought on itself (child without a 2 parent household more likely have to have children out of wedlock themselves). Being easier to acquire different forms of welfare when a single parent. Seeing it in their own communities. Regardless of what the reason or reasons are, this is likely a problem/symptom where you don't need to know the reason to come up with a solution. What do you think a good solution would be?

Because people like to ####, and sometimes they don't use protection. Do you really not know that? I think you probably know that.

No ###. I think you've found a root cause to this symptom/problem. Moreover, why is so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Regardless, what's your solution?

This is yet another instance of me actually putting some time into a post and backing it up with information to attempt to have a serious conversation with you about an issue and you come back with this type of response.

I also find it terribly funny that just yesterday you didn't understand what a "birth rate" really meant and how to apply it, and today you feel it's "the far more important figure."

Why is ####ing out of wedlock so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Really?

The answer is that it's not. Or at least I think that's probably way down the list of reasons for the disparity. Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

I'm not treating your posts on this whole "black kids being born out of wedlock are the problem!" thing seriously because I think it's pointless. First, I think the premise that two-parent families make a huge difference is mostly nonsense. Having two parents probably helps children a little bit, but most of the data shows correlation, not causation. Second, to the extent that it is a problem, there are already some obvious solutions that I would fully support. Increased funding for sex education for poorer areas of the country. Easy access to birth control in those areas. Unfettered access to abortions and financial assistance to those who seek them but can't afford them. Reform of our ridiculous drug laws so we stop incarcerating potential husbands for victimless crimes. There you go, problem solved. Is that gonna end unfair treatment of the black community by law enforcement? Is if going to put them on equal footing when it comes to financial opportunity?

Finally- yesterday I misread a post about raw birth numbers and cited birth rates instead. I apologized for it. I understand the difference between the two. Stop being a smug ####### about it.

You can not be serious.

I agree, I think we're done here.

Yeah, stable home lives are overrated.

A two parent family is the same thing as a stable home life? Fascinating

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Yeah, stable home lives are overrated.

A two parent family is the same thing as a stable home life? Fascinating

Well, you did show yesterday that percentages and total numbers weren't your strong suit.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

If the reason why black women have children out of wedlock is because they can't afford abortions or abortions are allegedly less accepted among black people, then why is the abortion rate so much higher for black women than any other group?

"An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." (Abortion's Racial Gap)

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why is ####ing out of wedlock so much more prevalent in one group and not in another? Really?

The answer is that it's not. Or at least I think that's probably way down the list of reasons for the disparity. Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

I'm not treating your posts on this whole "black kids being born out of wedlock are the problem!" thing seriously because I think it's pointless. First, I think the premise that two-parent families make a huge difference is mostly nonsense. Having two parents probably helps children a little bit, but most of the data shows correlation, not causation. Second, to the extent that it is a problem, there are already some obvious solutions that I would fully support. Increased funding for sex education for poorer areas of the country. Easy access to birth control in those areas. Unfettered access to abortions and financial assistance to those who seek them but can't afford them. Reform of our ridiculous drug laws so we stop incarcerating potential husbands for victimless crimes. There you go, problem solved. Is that gonna end unfair treatment of the black community by law enforcement? Is if going to put them on equal footing when it comes to financial opportunity?

Finally- yesterday I misread a post about raw birth numbers and cited birth rates instead. I apologized for it. I understand the difference between the two. Stop being a smug ####### about it.

You can not be serious.

I agree, I think we're done here.

You asked for my thoughts, and i gave them to you. My position wasn't a fishing trip or a joke, like yours yesterday. I believe what I wrote. I subsequently provided a link to validate and elaborate on that position. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask me for it. I was fine ending this silly conversation in which people suggested that most of society's race-related problems are due to to unwed motherhood hours ago.

 

[Cjw_55106]

There's a fair amount of research supporting that position (see The Nurture Assumption by ... I can't remember her name right now), but it's a really complicated thing to study and there are conflicting results that will bear differing interpretations. It deserves its own thread, perhaps, but neither position can be fairly dismissed as obviously unserious.

As a parent myself and son to a single mother (mostly since age 8) I know for a fact that it's very difficult for a single parent to raise a child well by themselves. To raise children well takes a tremendous amount of time and mental effort. A single parent needs either help from family or enough money to afford to hire help.

A counter to that is challenging situations can motivate kids and build character. However, I would lean towards single parent households as being an overall negative on a child's life.

Now imagine if you didn't enjoy your kid's existence but for the check that came every month. Now how hard is it to raise the kid?

Thas kind of a stretch IMO.

I'm sure you and yours sleep very well at night knowing you could never fathom that level of irresponsibility, but it happens.

Of course it happens. I just don't think it's on a grand scale.

 

[Hang 10]

A two parent family is the same thing as a stable home life? Fascinating

Nice looking family. Did anyone of those kids grow up to have any success?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

If the reason why black women have children out of wedlock is because they can't afford abortions or abortions are allegedly less accepted among black people, then why is the abortion rate so much higher for black women than any other group?

"An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." (Abortion's Racial Gap)

I stand corrected. Thanks.

FWIW, I didn't say that "the reason why black women have children out of wedlock is because they can't afford abortions or abortions are allegedly less accepted among black people." I listed only two of those among four factors. And you only disproved one of them- higher overall rates doesn't mean money is not a limiting factor, perhaps the ratios would be even higher if funding was not an issue. Also it doesn't change the fact that if you want fewer children to unwed mothers you should also want increased funding for and access to abortion.

 

[Passenger]

Sex education is more prevalent in one group and not another. Access to birth control is more prevalent in one group and not another. Money to pay for abortions- and societal acceptance of the practice- is more prevalent in one group and not another. Those are also significant reasons for the disparity.

If the reason why black women have children out of wedlock is because they can't afford abortions or abortions are allegedly less accepted among black people, then why is the abortion rate so much higher for black women than any other group?

"An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." (Abortion's Racial Gap)

I stand corrected. Thanks.

FWIW, I didn't say that "the reason why black women have children out of wedlock is because they can't afford abortions or abortions are allegedly less accepted among black people." I listed only two of those among four factors. And you only disproved one of them- higher overall rates doesn't mean money is not a limiting factor, perhaps the ratios would be even higher if funding was not an issue. Also it doesn't change the fact that if you want fewer children to unwed mothers you should also want increased funding for and access to abortion.

Ahhh, abortion as birth control. You're quite the humanitarian.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So I just read an article where they said they "sang" Take Me Out To The Ball Game" during the 7th inning stretch yesterday. And they also announced the official game attendance over the PA System as zero.

 

[Smack Tripper]

You want to sterilize and neuter black people?

Are you people literally psychotic. What in the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Hang 10]

So I just read an article where they said they "sang" Take Me Out To The Ball Game" during the 7th inning stretch yesterday. And they also announced the official game attendance over the PA System as zero.

What do the marlins have to do with this?

 

[MattFancy]

So I just read an article where they said they "sang" Take Me Out To The Ball Game" during the 7th inning stretch yesterday. And they also announced the official game attendance over the PA System as zero.

Caleb Joseph signs autographs for imaginary fans

Gary Thorne does his best Master's voice

 

[TheIronSheik]

You want to sterilize and neuter black people?

Are you people literally psychotic. What in the hell is wrong with you?

You should save this kind of stuff for individual PM's.

YWIA

 

[TheIronSheik]

So I just read an article where they said they "sang" Take Me Out To The Ball Game" during the 7th inning stretch yesterday. And they also announced the official game attendance over the PA System as zero.

Caleb Joseph signs autographs for imaginary fans

Gary Thorne does his best Master's voice

The Masters voice was great. I saw these yesterday as I was watching the game. I had tears in my eyes for the Masters voice.

 

[MattFancy]

So I just read an article where they said they "sang" Take Me Out To The Ball Game" during the 7th inning stretch yesterday. And they also announced the official game attendance over the PA System as zero.

Caleb Joseph signs autographs for imaginary fans

Gary Thorne does his best Master's voice

The Masters voice was great. I saw these yesterday as I was watching the game. I had tears in my eyes for the Masters voice.

"He whacks the sunofagun"

 

[James Daulton]

Did they play Thank God I'm a Country Boy?

 

[MattFancy]

Did they play Thank God I'm a Country Boy?

Sure did

 

[Cjw_55106]

I heard the Sox took the fans out the game pretty early on.

 

[Cjw_55106]

At one point, the first baseman for the Orioles tossed the ball into the stands after the inning was over.

 

[MattFancy]

I heard the Sox took the fans out the game pretty early on.

Was funny when Eaton said it, not so funny when they lost 8-2

 

[tom22406]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html

BALTIMORE, Md. (WJLA) -- An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.

The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report tuned over to prosecutors on Thursday as well as preliminary findings made by the medical examiner's office.

Sources said the medical examiner found Gray's catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.

Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. It’s also unclear whether Gray’s head injury was voluntary or was result of some other action.

 

[rockaction]

I don't think we'll ever get an answer and would also simply like to say that once the protests started, this wasn't about Freddie Gray, it was about dissatisfaction with policing both in Baltimore and in other cities. I'm not sure exactly what these reports would have proven, other than to give the inner city some sort of retributive justice toward the actors or through the actors as proxies for other police officers. I'm just not sure what was hoped for in the accounting for the death nor that, in the end, this particular case really mattered to the protestors, rioters, and looters. It's all proxy and symbolic at this point.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html

BALTIMORE, Md. (WJLA) -- An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.

The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report tuned over to prosecutors on Thursday as well as preliminary findings made by the medical examiner's office.

Sources said the medical examiner found Gray's catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.

Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. It’s also unclear whether Gray’s head injury was voluntary or was result of some other action.

Does anyone know where the burden of proof is on this? Does the prosecutor need proof that the officers actually caused the injury by slamming the brakes short or giving a "rough ride" ? Or is it enough that Gray suffered fatal injuries while in custody and those injuries could have been prevented had the officers better restrained him?

 

[tom22406]

Another question I have is when did passenger 2(the one who claims Gray harmed himself)in the van get put inside?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Humiliation complete

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html

BALTIMORE, Md. (WJLA) -- An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.

The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report tuned over to prosecutors on Thursday as well as preliminary findings made by the medical examiner's office.

Sources said the medical examiner found Gray's catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.

Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. It’s also unclear whether Gray’s head injury was voluntary or was result of some other action.

Does anyone know where the burden of proof is on this? Does the prosecutor need proof that the officers actually caused the injury by slamming the brakes short or giving a "rough ride" ? Or is it enough that Gray suffered fatal injuries while in custody and those injuries could have been prevented had the officers better restrained him?

This becomes a negligence, civil inquiry at this point, not criminal. So the BOP is preponderance of the evidence.

If they try to get to criminal negligence or some sort of manslaughter they are going to have an impossible climb.

 

[rockaction]

Humiliation complete

Oh dear God.

 

[Passenger]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html

BALTIMORE, Md. (WJLA) -- An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.

The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report tuned over to prosecutors on Thursday as well as preliminary findings made by the medical examiner's office.

Sources said the medical examiner found Gray's catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.

Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. Its also unclear whether Grays head injury was voluntary or was result of some other action.

Does anyone know where the burden of proof is on this? Does the prosecutor need proof that the officers actually caused the injury by slamming the brakes short or giving a "rough ride" ? Or is it enough that Gray suffered fatal injuries while in custody and those injuries could have been prevented had the officers better restrained him?

This becomes a negligence, civil inquiry at this point, not criminal. So the BOP is preponderance of the evidence.

If they try to get to criminal negligence or some sort of manslaughter they are going to have an impossible climb.

Seeing as the BPD have an impossible fight on their hands, it would make sense for this case or anything related to it to be an "impossible climb."

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html

BALTIMORE, Md. (WJLA) -- An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.

The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report tuned over to prosecutors on Thursday as well as preliminary findings made by the medical examiner's office.

Sources said the medical examiner found Gray's catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.

Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. It’s also unclear whether Gray’s head injury was voluntary or was result of some other action.

Does anyone know where the burden of proof is on this? Does the prosecutor need proof that the officers actually caused the injury by slamming the brakes short or giving a "rough ride" ? Or is it enough that Gray suffered fatal injuries while in custody and those injuries could have been prevented had the officers better restrained him?

This becomes a negligence, civil inquiry at this point, not criminal. So the BOP is preponderance of the evidence.

If they try to get to criminal negligence or some sort of manslaughter they are going to have an impossible climb.

It seems like quite a leap to assume it is impossible to show negligence without having any idea what actually happened when the suspect was placed in the van nor what the usual practice is for putting suspects in vans.

Say for example the evidence reveals that the guy was not secured at all, that his injuries were caused by the fact that he was not secured, that police guidance mandates that suspects placed in vans like this one be secured, and that virtually all police follow that procedure when placing suspects in vans. That seems like a pretty easy involuntary manslaughter case to make.

 

[Boston]

Humiliation complete

Looks like Todd Bridges..."whatcha talkin bout Willis"...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html

BALTIMORE, Md. (WJLA) -- An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.

The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report tuned over to prosecutors on Thursday as well as preliminary findings made by the medical examiner's office.

Sources said the medical examiner found Gray's catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.

Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. It’s also unclear whether Gray’s head injury was voluntary or was result of some other action.

Does anyone know where the burden of proof is on this? Does the prosecutor need proof that the officers actually caused the injury by slamming the brakes short or giving a "rough ride" ? Or is it enough that Gray suffered fatal injuries while in custody and those injuries could have been prevented had the officers better restrained him?

This becomes a negligence, civil inquiry at this point, not criminal. So the BOP is preponderance of the evidence.

If they try to get to criminal negligence or some sort of manslaughter they are going to have an impossible climb.

It seems like quite a leap to assume it is impossible to show negligence without having any idea what actually happened when the suspect was placed in the van nor what the usual practice is for putting suspects in vans.

Say for example the evidence reveals that the guy was not secured at all, that his injuries were caused by the fact that he was not secured, that police guidance mandates that suspects placed in vans like this one be secured, and that virtually all police follow that procedure when placing suspects in vans. That seems like a pretty easy involuntary manslaughter case to make.

Ok, I agree on the negligence. You may know more on the subject than me. I think the PD had just come out with regulations, like that week (per tv news) which required arrestees be strapped in. I'm sure that will be an issue. But for it to be criminal negligence or manslaughter, doesn't have to rise to some level of gross willfulness? Negligence I see, but how do you get to proving that they were so negligent they meant to harm him in some way (or that they should have known it was likely to happen)?

By the way, the coroner (M.E.) is not above politics or protecting the cops in some cities.

 

[Insomniac]

Humiliation complete

Two out of 3 family members are smiling.