"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
You angry, bro?
Ann Coulter, the fuck? I said nothing about that cunt. Take it up with Don Lemon. I was just passing along what I was hearing from him.
Here's the answer! We need more of this, and more calling people racists and getting angry at them when the bring up the truth.
I SAID GOOD DAY!
I'm not angry Mike. I'm just disappointed.
Well, call Don Lemon and let him know. The sell out that he is.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Un trapo progresiva finalmente reconoce lo obvio. Los hogares monoparentales es igual a un aumento de la delincuencia que se puede compensar con el aumento de la acción policial. Causalidad QED.
My sources are telling me most liberals are either gay, have gay tendencies (which also means gay), or eat nachos while looking at young men in athletic tights.
My sources are telling me most liberals are either gay, have gay tendencies (which also means gay), or eat nachos while looking at young men in athletic tights.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
No peer reviewed study necessary. It's called common muthafukkkin sense.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
I don't need peer reviewed studies. I grew up on Delridge. Common sense, muthafucka.
But maybe growing up in poverty makes you more likely to grow up in a single parent home. Have you thought about causation?
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
I don't need peer reviewed studies. I grew up on Delridge. Common sense, muthafucka.
But maybe growing up in poverty makes you more likely to grow up in a single parent home. Have you thought about causation?
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
I don't need peer reviewed studies. I grew up on Delridge. Common sense, muthafucka.
But maybe growing up in poverty makes you more likely to grow up in a single parent home. Have you thought about causation?
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
No peer reviewed study necessary. It's called common muthafukkkin sense.
Also, causation.
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to recieve lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo being born black makes you more likely to end up in prison.
Now I actually don't have any problem with this. The problem is when you start assigning blame using your "common sense" which is what Damone has done. If being a single parent causes this, using that logic, being black also causes it.
Maybe I'm a just crazy liberal. Maybe I work at the Leftorium. But I don't think that the color of someone's skin causes them to commit crime.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
No peer reviewed study necessary. It's called common muthafukkkin sense.
Also, causation.
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to recieve lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo being born black makes you more likely to end up in prison.
Now I actually don't have any problem with this. The problem is when you start assigning blame using your "common sense" which is what Damone has done. If being a single parent causes this, using that logic, being black also causes it.
Maybe I'm a just crazy liberal. Maybe I work at the Leftorium. But I don't think that the color of someone's skin causes them to commit crime.
No peer reviewed study necessary.
Well played.
But still.
In the hood I grew up in your likelihood of being in poverty had a lot more to do with being in a single parent home than whether your skin was dark enough to make Race swoon.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
No peer reviewed study necessary. It's called common muthafukkkin sense.
Also, causation.
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to recieve lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo being born black makes you more likely to end up in prison.
Now I actually don't have any problem with this. The problem is when you start assigning blame using your "common sense" which is what Damone has done. If being a single parent causes this, using that logic, being black also causes it.
Maybe I'm a just crazy liberal. Maybe I work at the Leftorium. But I don't think that the color of someone's skin causes them to commit crime.
No peer reviewed study necessary.
Well played.
But still.
In the hood I grew up in your likelihood of being in poverty had a lot more to do with being in a single parent home than whether your skin was dark enough to make Race swoon.
I've spent plenty of time on the wrong side of 35th. I lived on Delridge for a while. And in all that time I learned one very important thing, that your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
No peer reviewed study necessary. It's called common muthafukkkin sense.
Also, causation.
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to recieve lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo being born black makes you more likely to end up in prison.
Now I actually don't have any problem with this. The problem is when you start assigning blame using your "common sense" which is what Damone has done. If being a single parent causes this, using that logic, being black also causes it.
Maybe I'm a just crazy liberal. Maybe I work at the Leftorium. But I don't think that the color of someone's skin causes them to commit crime.
No peer reviewed study necessary.
Well played.
But still.
In the hood I grew up in your likelihood of being in poverty had a lot more to do with being in a single parent home than whether your skin was dark enough to make Race swoon.
I've spent plenty of time on the wrong side of 35th. I lived on Delridge for a while. And in all that time I learned one very important thing, that your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit.
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
No peer reviewed study necessary. It's called common muthafukkkin sense.
Also, causation.
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to recieve lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo being born black makes you more likely to end up in prison.
Now I actually don't have any problem with this. The problem is when you start assigning blame using your "common sense" which is what Damone has done. If being a single parent causes this, using that logic, being black also causes it.
Maybe I'm a just crazy liberal. Maybe I work at the Leftorium. But I don't think that the color of someone's skin causes them to commit crime.
No peer reviewed study necessary.
I was just agreeing with Don Lemon.
Take race out of it. My points are still valid. Put a white kid in the same situation regarding family and education and you get the same results
Ok Kobe. Take two white kids born on the same day. One is born to parents with jobs, they stay married, help with the kids home work, encourage activities outside of school like sports or music, attend parent teacher conferences etc etc etc. One is born to a teen mom, she doesn't finish high school, the father is no where to be seen, grandparents have to step in to help, mom then ends up on public assistance, works low wage jobs that reflect her low skills and lack of education, she tries but can't provide the supervision the kids needs because of the demands of struggling to make ends meet, she doesn't have much involvement in the kids education because she herself doesn't know how to do that.
Which kid is more likely to spend their life in poverty, not finish school, end up addicted, in prison, and repeat their cycle? Not every kid in scenario one will be successful and not every kid in scenario to will stay in poverty, but in general, we know that the kid in poverty is more likely to stay there.
We also know that single parent households are more likely to be in poverty.
Not a race issue at all. The only racial issue is that as a percentage, more in the black and Hispanic community fall in scenario number 2. Don Lemon is attempting to address that without allowing them to be called victims. That's all. Now go ramble on about peer reviewed studies and causation while millions of people remain forever trapped in this cycle.
Comments
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/#disqus_thread
Causation AND abundance support this theory.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to receive lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo, being born into a single parent home makes you more likely to end up in prison.
No peer reviewed study necessary. It's called common muthafukkkin sense.
Also, causation.
Growing up in poverty makes you more likely to commit crime.
Committing crime makes you more likely to recieve lana esirprus in prison.
Ergo being born black makes you more likely to end up in prison.
Now I actually don't have any problem with this. The problem is when you start assigning blame using your "common sense" which is what Damone has done. If being a single parent causes this, using that logic, being black also causes it.
Maybe I'm a just crazy liberal. Maybe I work at the Leftorium. But I don't think that the color of someone's skin causes them to commit crime.
No peer reviewed study necessary.
But still.
In the hood I grew up in your likelihood of being in poverty had a lot more to do with being in a single parent home than whether your skin was dark enough to make Race swoon.
Take race out of it. My points are still valid. Put a white kid in the same situation regarding family and education and you get the same results
Which kid is more likely to spend their life in poverty, not finish school, end up addicted, in prison, and repeat their cycle? Not every kid in scenario one will be successful and not every kid in scenario to will stay in poverty, but in general, we know that the kid in poverty is more likely to stay there.
We also know that single parent households are more likely to be in poverty.
Not a race issue at all. The only racial issue is that as a percentage, more in the black and Hispanic community fall in scenario number 2. Don Lemon is attempting to address that without allowing them to be called victims. That's all. Now go ramble on about peer reviewed studies and causation while millions of people remain forever trapped in this cycle.
Good day sir.