Don Lemon's 5 point plan
Comments
-
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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.
-
But maybe growing up in poverty makes you more likely to grow up in a single parent home. Have you thought about causation?HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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. -
Indeed, twas why I edited said poastMikeDamone said:
But maybe growing up in poverty makes you more likely to grow up in a single parent home. Have you thought about causation?HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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.
-
Racist prickHillsboroDuck said:
Indeed, twas why I edited said poastMikeDamone said:
But maybe growing up in poverty makes you more likely to grow up in a single parent home. Have you thought about causation?HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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. -
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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. -
Well played.TheKobeStopper said:
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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.
-
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.HillsboroDuck said:
Well played.TheKobeStopper said:
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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. -
disagreeTheKobeStopper said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
Well played.TheKobeStopper said:
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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.
-
I was just agreeing with Don Lemon.TheKobeStopper said:
Growing up black makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.HillsboroDuck said:
Growing up in a single parent home makes you more likely to grow up in poverty.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:"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.
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 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.
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.
Good day sir. -
Look, if we're going to bash white kids I am out!
-
MikeDamone said:
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.
Good day sir.
What you're really saying is that living the life of AND > living the life of OR. Mom AND Dad > Mom OR Dad. Life of abundance FTW.
-
MikeDamone said:
This asshole shows no causation. He is likely a racist..and gay..
What? Who the fuck is this guy?
What the fuck is his fucking problem?
What is he, some sort of godamn asshole? -
As a percentage. That's a good starting point. Like that 72% statistic that you've furiously masterbating to. Except its 72% of black mothers are unwed, not single. The number of those women living with the father slices that number way down. Perhaps not as low as you would like but still way down. Another interesting tidbit, the birth rate for married black women is significantly lower than the birth rate for married white women. And since we are dealing with percentages that would skew the percentage of black single mothers.MikeDamone said: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.
Good day sir.
Perhaps you can answer this question. No matter what numbers you want use, your factually incorrect ones or my factually correct ones, because there are more white people despite the difference in percentage there have been millions and millions of more white children raised by single parents than black children. So how come black men fill up our jails? If being a single parent has all these negative consequences and it leads to committing crime then why does the group with more children being raised by single parents, the raw numbers not the percentage, have way less people in jail?
This issue is much more complicated than you want it to be. You can present surface numbers that seem to make sense, seem like common sense, but once you dig in its a fucking mess. I have said previously that I didn't have a problem with the idea of focusing on family and education. I think specifically education needs to be addressed in this country. On the lower ends its a fucking debacle. But I asked you for solutions in one of these threads and you said Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should do something about. I find that to be as empty and meaningless as the people who sit around saying we need to have a conversation about race but just spend their time saying we should have it instead of actually having it.
And if you think I've spent all these years arguing with Race Bannon and now I'm going to answer a loaded question, like the one you presented, you have lost your fucking mind. I spent to much time playing checkers while that man played chess. I learned from the best. I don't play checkers anymore. Just remember that next time you make or read a joke about "causation". Like I didn't use that word for a specific purpose. Here's a hint, I don't give a fuck about causation.
I said good day. -
You mad bro? Seems like it.TheKobeStopper said:
As a percentage. That's a good starting point. Like that 72% statistic that you've furiously masterbating to. Except its 72% of black mothers are unwed, not single. The number of those women living with the father slices that number way down. Perhaps not as low as you would like but still way down. Another interesting tidbit, the birth rate for married black women is significantly lower than the birth rate for married white women. And since we are dealing with percentages that would skew the percentage of black single mothers.MikeDamone said: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.
Good day sir.
Perhaps you can answer this question. No matter what numbers you want use, your factually incorrect ones or my factually correct ones, because there are more white people despite the difference in percentage there have been millions and millions of more white children raised by single parents than black children. So how come black men fill up our jails? If being a single parent has all these negative consequences and it leads to committing crime then why does the group with more children being raised by single parents, the raw numbers not the percentage, have way less people in jail?
This issue is much more complicated than you want it to be. You can present surface numbers that seem to make sense, seem like common sense, but once you dig in its a fucking mess. I have said previously that I didn't have a problem with the idea of focusing on family and education. I think specifically education needs to be addressed in this country. On the lower ends its a fucking debacle. But I asked you for solutions in one of these threads and you said Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should do something about. I find that to be as empty and meaningless as the people who sit around saying we need to have a conversation about race but just spend their time saying we should have it instead of actually having it.
And if you think I've spent all these years arguing with Race Bannon and now I'm going to answer a loaded question, like the one you presented, you have lost your fucking mind. I spent to much time playing checkers while that man played chess. I learned from the best. I don't play checkers anymore. Just remember that next time you make or read a joke about "causation". Like I didn't use that word for a specific purpose. Here's a hint, I don't give a fuck about causation.
I said good day.
You learned very little from Race, so it seems.
So I can mark you down as disagreeing with the Don Lemon solution? Good to know. -
Not your best effort.MikeDamone said:
You mad bro? Seems like it.TheKobeStopper said:
As a percentage. That's a good starting point. Like that 72% statistic that you've furiously masterbating to. Except its 72% of black mothers are unwed, not single. The number of those women living with the father slices that number way down. Perhaps not as low as you would like but still way down. Another interesting tidbit, the birth rate for married black women is significantly lower than the birth rate for married white women. And since we are dealing with percentages that would skew the percentage of black single mothers.MikeDamone said: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.
Good day sir.
Perhaps you can answer this question. No matter what numbers you want use, your factually incorrect ones or my factually correct ones, because there are more white people despite the difference in percentage there have been millions and millions of more white children raised by single parents than black children. So how come black men fill up our jails? If being a single parent has all these negative consequences and it leads to committing crime then why does the group with more children being raised by single parents, the raw numbers not the percentage, have way less people in jail?
This issue is much more complicated than you want it to be. You can present surface numbers that seem to make sense, seem like common sense, but once you dig in its a fucking mess. I have said previously that I didn't have a problem with the idea of focusing on family and education. I think specifically education needs to be addressed in this country. On the lower ends its a fucking debacle. But I asked you for solutions in one of these threads and you said Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should do something about. I find that to be as empty and meaningless as the people who sit around saying we need to have a conversation about race but just spend their time saying we should have it instead of actually having it.
And if you think I've spent all these years arguing with Race Bannon and now I'm going to answer a loaded question, like the one you presented, you have lost your fucking mind. I spent to much time playing checkers while that man played chess. I learned from the best. I don't play checkers anymore. Just remember that next time you make or read a joke about "causation". Like I didn't use that word for a specific purpose. Here's a hint, I don't give a fuck about causation.
I said good day.
You learned very little from Race, so it seems.
So I can mark you down as disagreeing with the Don Lemon solution? Good to know. -
If you disagree with Lemon's points, just say so. No need to be a wise guy.TheKobeStopper said:
Not your best effort.MikeDamone said:
You mad bro? Seems like it.TheKobeStopper said:
As a percentage. That's a good starting point. Like that 72% statistic that you've furiously masterbating to. Except its 72% of black mothers are unwed, not single. The number of those women living with the father slices that number way down. Perhaps not as low as you would like but still way down. Another interesting tidbit, the birth rate for married black women is significantly lower than the birth rate for married white women. And since we are dealing with percentages that would skew the percentage of black single mothers.MikeDamone said: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.
Good day sir.
Perhaps you can answer this question. No matter what numbers you want use, your factually incorrect ones or my factually correct ones, because there are more white people despite the difference in percentage there have been millions and millions of more white children raised by single parents than black children. So how come black men fill up our jails? If being a single parent has all these negative consequences and it leads to committing crime then why does the group with more children being raised by single parents, the raw numbers not the percentage, have way less people in jail?
This issue is much more complicated than you want it to be. You can present surface numbers that seem to make sense, seem like common sense, but once you dig in its a fucking mess. I have said previously that I didn't have a problem with the idea of focusing on family and education. I think specifically education needs to be addressed in this country. On the lower ends its a fucking debacle. But I asked you for solutions in one of these threads and you said Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should do something about. I find that to be as empty and meaningless as the people who sit around saying we need to have a conversation about race but just spend their time saying we should have it instead of actually having it.
And if you think I've spent all these years arguing with Race Bannon and now I'm going to answer a loaded question, like the one you presented, you have lost your fucking mind. I spent to much time playing checkers while that man played chess. I learned from the best. I don't play checkers anymore. Just remember that next time you make or read a joke about "causation". Like I didn't use that word for a specific purpose. Here's a hint, I don't give a fuck about causation.
I said good day.
You learned very little from Race, so it seems.
So I can mark you down as disagreeing with the Don Lemon solution? Good to know. -
Sven can link you to my answer.MikeDamone said:
If you disagree with Lemon's points, just say so. No need to be a wise guy.TheKobeStopper said:
Not your best effort.MikeDamone said:
You mad bro? Seems like it.TheKobeStopper said:
As a percentage. That's a good starting point. Like that 72% statistic that you've furiously masterbating to. Except its 72% of black mothers are unwed, not single. The number of those women living with the father slices that number way down. Perhaps not as low as you would like but still way down. Another interesting tidbit, the birth rate for married black women is significantly lower than the birth rate for married white women. And since we are dealing with percentages that would skew the percentage of black single mothers.MikeDamone said: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.
Good day sir.
Perhaps you can answer this question. No matter what numbers you want use, your factually incorrect ones or my factually correct ones, because there are more white people despite the difference in percentage there have been millions and millions of more white children raised by single parents than black children. So how come black men fill up our jails? If being a single parent has all these negative consequences and it leads to committing crime then why does the group with more children being raised by single parents, the raw numbers not the percentage, have way less people in jail?
This issue is much more complicated than you want it to be. You can present surface numbers that seem to make sense, seem like common sense, but once you dig in its a fucking mess. I have said previously that I didn't have a problem with the idea of focusing on family and education. I think specifically education needs to be addressed in this country. On the lower ends its a fucking debacle. But I asked you for solutions in one of these threads and you said Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should do something about. I find that to be as empty and meaningless as the people who sit around saying we need to have a conversation about race but just spend their time saying we should have it instead of actually having it.
And if you think I've spent all these years arguing with Race Bannon and now I'm going to answer a loaded question, like the one you presented, you have lost your fucking mind. I spent to much time playing checkers while that man played chess. I learned from the best. I don't play checkers anymore. Just remember that next time you make or read a joke about "causation". Like I didn't use that word for a specific purpose. Here's a hint, I don't give a fuck about causation.
I said good day.
You learned very little from Race, so it seems.
So I can mark you down as disagreeing with the Don Lemon solution? Good to know. -
That's what I thoughtTheKobeStopper said:
Sven can link you to my answer.MikeDamone said:
If you disagree with Lemon's points, just say so. No need to be a wise guy.TheKobeStopper said:
Not your best effort.MikeDamone said:
You mad bro? Seems like it.TheKobeStopper said:
As a percentage. That's a good starting point. Like that 72% statistic that you've furiously masterbating to. Except its 72% of black mothers are unwed, not single. The number of those women living with the father slices that number way down. Perhaps not as low as you would like but still way down. Another interesting tidbit, the birth rate for married black women is significantly lower than the birth rate for married white women. And since we are dealing with percentages that would skew the percentage of black single mothers.MikeDamone said: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.
Good day sir.
Perhaps you can answer this question. No matter what numbers you want use, your factually incorrect ones or my factually correct ones, because there are more white people despite the difference in percentage there have been millions and millions of more white children raised by single parents than black children. So how come black men fill up our jails? If being a single parent has all these negative consequences and it leads to committing crime then why does the group with more children being raised by single parents, the raw numbers not the percentage, have way less people in jail?
This issue is much more complicated than you want it to be. You can present surface numbers that seem to make sense, seem like common sense, but once you dig in its a fucking mess. I have said previously that I didn't have a problem with the idea of focusing on family and education. I think specifically education needs to be addressed in this country. On the lower ends its a fucking debacle. But I asked you for solutions in one of these threads and you said Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should do something about. I find that to be as empty and meaningless as the people who sit around saying we need to have a conversation about race but just spend their time saying we should have it instead of actually having it.
And if you think I've spent all these years arguing with Race Bannon and now I'm going to answer a loaded question, like the one you presented, you have lost your fucking mind. I spent to much time playing checkers while that man played chess. I learned from the best. I don't play checkers anymore. Just remember that next time you make or read a joke about "causation". Like I didn't use that word for a specific purpose. Here's a hint, I don't give a fuck about causation.
I said good day.
You learned very little from Race, so it seems.
So I can mark you down as disagreeing with the Don Lemon solution? Good to know.
-
you guys have become like an old married couple
-
Got.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
-
Strike three.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
Obligatory link to the special marriage between Damone, APAG, and DJ.
-
The ".org" part of Sven's favorite link never gets old. Non profit citrus.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Strike three.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
Obligatory link to the special marriage between Damone, APAG, and DJ.
-
Mods?
-
this little war between Dabone and Ruben Patterson is getting old.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
-
I tried to warn DJ that you weren't bluffing.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Strike three.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
Obligatory link to the special marriage between Damone, APAG, and DJ. -
I'm not falling for the banana in the tailpipe trick.TheKobeStopper said:
I tried to warn DJ that you weren't bluffing.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Strike three.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
Obligatory link to the special marriage between Damone, APAG, and DJ. -
Is that Wenatchee banana in the tailpipe, blondeandbanana in the tailpipe or abundance?MikeDamone said:
I'm not falling for the banana in the tailpipe trick.TheKobeStopper said:
I tried to warn DJ that you weren't bluffing.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Strike three.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
Obligatory link to the special marriage between Damone, APAG, and DJ.
-
This belongs on unleashed guys.
-
You like to call me DJ. You really do.TheKobeStopper said:
I tried to warn DJ that you weren't bluffing.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Strike three.DerekJohnson said:you guys have become like an old married couple
Obligatory link to the special marriage between Damone, APAG, and DJ.
