Tom Brady is father to 2 children??

Quote:

---

CAN YOU NAME ONE PERSON WHO HAS DONE THE THREE THINGS NOTED AND IS IN POVERTY?

---

Selection Bias. You wouldn't know one because you yourself are successful and probably middle class to upper middle class.


If you've worked with people at homeless shelters, which I bet you haven't, you would know that lots of people fall on hard times regardless of education status because of being laid off, because of mental health problems, because of medical conditions and the medical bills that may come with that.


A good example is a homeless man that my uncle encountered that was an upstanding individual; college schooled, etc etc worked at a Jewlry Store. Store got robbed and he was hit with a shotgun blast to the head.


In a coma for a few weeks, come out and they're bassically waitinf for the pieces of his fractured skull to naturally float out of his brain along with shotgun pellets.


Long story short, he's disfigured, has a plate over the front of his head, had mental problems from said brain damage and is homeless.


People fall on hard times for a number of reasons. they are not all to be blamed on the individual.


As a libertarian, I would expect you to think so though. And you're living up to the billing. My roomate thinks the same way, BUT he doesn't state the opinions as fact, or pretend that studies publishes in the Economist are fact. Why? Because he's trained to understand that its not that black or white.


If it was "simple" then we wouldn't have politics, or be having this discussion. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave

Selection Bias. You wouldn't know one because you yourself are successful and probably middle class to upper middle class.


If you've worked with people at homeless shelters, which I bet you haven't, you would know that lots of people fall on hard times regardless of education status because of being laid off, because of mental health problems, because of medical conditions and the medical bills that may come with that.


A good example is a homeless man that my uncle encountered that was an upstanding individual; college schooled, etc etc worked at a Jewlry Store. Store got robbed and he was hit with a shotgun blast to the head.


In a coma for a few weeks, come out and they're bassically waitinf for the pieces of his fractured skull to naturally float out of his brain along with shotgun pellets.


Long story short, he's disfigured, has a plate over the front of his head, had mental problems from said brain damage and is homeless.


People fall on hard times for a number of reasons. they are not all to be blamed on the individual.


As a libertarian, I would expect you to think so though. And you're living up to the billing. My roomate thinks the same way, BUT he doesn't state the opinions as fact, or pretend that studies publishes in the Economist are fact. Why? Because he's trained to understand that its not that black or white.


If it was "simple" then we wouldn't have politics, or be having this discussion. Period.

---

Ummm, that is quite an extreme example isn't it Dave?

Sure, there are circumstances that occur that are out of certain individuals control. That happens in all walks of life. However, it's certianly not the norm.

Nevermind the real world. We'll just pretend that everything happens in a classroom or a textbook.

I love how somebody else can't know anything because they are middle or upper class. But since you have a poly sci degree, you do?

Face it Dave, you want to make excuses for other people's bad choices. And Greg is dead on when saying that people who do that are worse than people making the bad choices.

Just take a walk through the city of Baltimore. You don't need a degree to see how the lack of father's in the lives of children is destroying the fabric of the city.

All of your jargon and rhetoric just clouds reality. And that, in turn, is leading us further down the wrong path.

PP

PurplePoe:


The reality is people can fall on hard times, regardless of education or not having kids out of wedlock, etc.


People who say, are the only child of their parents, and who's parents die, and have little to no kinship network left only need to be laid off once, have one serious disease or accident, one mental health breakdown, or one generally unlucky event to fall on hard times.


People who are middle class to upper class like Greg, maybe you PP, whoever, will try to put this on the "sins" or mistakes of the poor.


But don't get it twisted, people fall on hard times and its often not their fault.


Studies like the one Greg are citing usually have many evident selection biases as to get a result which the funder of the study would like.


If you don't understand what selection bias is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


In any case, people like Greg who state studies and statistics as "facts" are usually people who dont' like to recognize that studies are often political and baised, and people who just need to take a few simple social science statistic classes to realize that data can be made to look like what the funders want.


People fall on hard times, and many times, its not their fault. They don't need to get shit on on a message board by people who don't know and don't care about them, but share a certain political point of view and want to think the Economist is hard "fact"


How about this: instead of relying on the economist, go down to your local homeless shelter. Do some community service: a large enough "N" size so that this little experiment has statistical significance.


Ask you average homeless joe who you're serving soup how he/she got there. You'd be suprised.


-CBD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave

PurplePoe:


The reality is people can fall on hard times, regardless of education or not having kids out of wedlock, etc.


People who say, are the only child of their parents, and who's parents die, and have little to no kinship network left only need to be laid off once, have one serious disease or accident, one mental health breakdown, or one generally unlucky event to fall on hard times.


People who are middle class to upper class like Greg, maybe you PP, whoever, will try to put this on the "sins" or mistakes of the poor.


But don't get it twisted, people fall on hard times and its often not their fault.


Studies like the one Greg are citing usually have many evident selection biases as to get a result which the funder of the study would like.


If you don't understand what selection bias is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


In any case, people like Greg who state studies and statistics as "facts" are usually people who dont' like to recognize that studies are often political and baised, and people who just need to take a few simple social science statistic classes to realize that data can be made to look like what the funders want.


People fall on hard times, and many times, its not their fault. They don't need to get shit on on a message board by people who don't know and don't care about them, but share a certain political point of view and want to think the Economist is hard "fact"


How about this: instead of relying on the economist, go down to your local homeless shelter. Do some community service: a large enough "N" size so that this little experiment has statistical significance.


Ask you average homeless joe who you're serving soup how he/she got there. You'd be suprised.


-CBD

---

You know what's funny Dave?

You repeatedly make generalizations about anyone in middle or upper class. How they can't understand the topic at hand.

Do you not see the complete and utter contradiction in that?

You sound like a professor. I went to college and have a degree as well Dave. I remember listening to professors spew and spew thinking they were presenting a fair and balanced point of view.

Then I went into the the real world and realized it was 99% complete and utter biased bullshit.

Im not "upper" class Dave. And I've volunteered at homeless shelters on many more occasions than you might think.

And yes, there are stories that are sad and that I have sympathy for.

HOWEVER, those stories and situations are dwarfed by the situations caused by poor decisions.

And you know what? MANY of those people making poor decisions come from broken homes with no father in the picture.

Nobody is saying people can't fall on hard times Dave. I have friends who grew up wealthy with both parents are are completely screwed up.

What some of us are saying is that a good, solid home with both parents significantly helps and child become a successful member of society.

It's not selection bias. It's not anything but reality.

Check it out.

PP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by camdenyard

Greg knows what he is talking about. He talks like a parent who knows about responsibility, not a man-child who thinks he can screw anyone he wants and if there is an "oops" pull out a checkbook and make it go away at worst or at best get away with it.

He's also right that our culture is going down the shitter. We need more of the 1950s values in this country.

---

The 50's "values" are waaaaay overrated, and hardly applicable to now. What, you want an America where midle class, and wealth are reserved for wasps? Championing the ways of the '50's is advocating racism.:bag: You cannot seperate the two! It's impossible!

I nominate this thread and all its posts as the WORST ever posted on this board

This was never a discussion about race. Maybe you should read the thread before condemning it.

If you have a racial axe to grind, perhaps you should start your own thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by camdenyard

This was never a discussion about race. Maybe you should read the thread before condemning it.

If you have a racial axe to grind, perhaps you should start your own thread.

---

I am responding directly to your words, I don't have an axe to grind. What I said is true. 50's values WERE all about white middle class. To invoke the "good ol' days" (which you didn't, specifically,) ... who were they good for? WASPS, only. These were NOT good Ol' days for blacks. I'm simply saying, those days were NOT very moral, when you consider the pain and injustice inflicted by those "morals"! The two cannot be seperated, and should NOT be something we hold up for a shining light!
As to the other post about this being the worst thread, and post, I was referring to the post, in this thread, someone said "we should be able to nominate the worst post.....", as they were arguing a post... It was my attempt at humor, since psychology majors, minors, and amateurs were trying to solve the world's social downfalls here.... on this pro football site... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

50's values WERE all about white middle class. To invoke the "good ol' days" (which you didn't, specifically,) ... who were they good for? WASPS, only. These were NOT good Ol' days for blacks. I'm simply saying, those days were NOT very moral, when you consider the pain and injustice inflicted by those "morals"! The two cannot be seperated, and should NOT be something we hold up for a shining light!

---

Sure you can. You can take the good and bad from anything.

Want to talk about a huge dividing point between the races? The War of Northern Aggression.
Slavery was one reason for the war, which we all agree is a bad thing.
States Rights was another reason for the war which, depending on your political leanings, is a good thing.
Slavery = Bad.
States Rights = Good.

Quote:

---

But don't get it twisted, people fall on hard times and its often not their fault.

---

Often Dave? I'd go with occasionally not their fault.

You cited one example of bad luck leading to homelessness. Want me to go through the examples of people I know who are hovering right around the poverty line who have children, aren't married, and didn't go to college/graduate high school?

And yes Dave not graduating high school is a choice, as is having multiple children by multiple partners.

Quote:

---

In any case, people like Greg who state studies and statistics as "facts" are usually people who dont' like to recognize that studies are often political and baised, and people who just need to take a few simple social science statistic classes to realize that data can be made to look like what the funders want.

---

While people who attempt to ignore those studies are often those people who can't provide any studies to validate their own stance.

Show me a study that says high school graduates are just as likely to be living at the poverty level as those who didn't graduate high school.

Darb, you restrained yourself from chiming in on this learned debate for so long, I am surprised you gave in. :)

Quote:

---

HOWEVER, those stories and situations are dwarfed by the situations caused by poor decisions.

---

Evidence, please.


Give me something other than your opinion to substantiate such a statement as "truth"


And please, don't throw an economist article at me, so I can point out who funded it, and their agenda. And the fact that how you collect, permeutate, and report data is an inherently political process.


I'm not invalidating anyone's opinions. But don't state opinion as "fact" or say "Dave, Greg is right". If everyone agreed with Greg, there wouldn't be politics, or two political parties, or multiple points of view


But honestly, I all of this is neither here nor there in terms of what this is really about.


When it comes down to it, people in America feel enough sense of entitlement to state their point of view as "fact". And its seemingly impossible to make them see it otherwise.


If you were like me and in the business of creating studies and statistics like Greg's little Economist article, you'd understand what goes into making a number or statistic and exactly why a number like "199 out of 200" wreaks of bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave

Evidence, please.


Give me something other than your opinion to substantiate such a statement as "truth"


And please, don't throw an economist article at me, so I can point out who funded it, and their agenda. And the fact that how you collect, permeutate, and report data is an inherently political process.


I'm not invalidating anyone's opinions. But don't state opinion as "fact" or say "Dave, Greg is right". If everyone agreed with Greg, there wouldn't be politics, or two political parties, or multiple points of view


But honestly, I all of this is neither here nor there in terms of what this is really about.


When it comes down to it, people in America feel enough sense of entitlement to state their point of view as "fact". And its seemingly impossible to make them see it otherwise.


If you were like me and in the business of creating studies and statistics like Greg's little Economist article, you'd understand what goes into making a number or statistic and exactly why a number like "199 out of 200" wreaks of bullshit.

---

Reality Dave.

That's the evidence.

You sit there with your degree and create studies to do exactly what? Try to debunk any study which provides data that you don't particularly agree with?

You're condescending tone is hilarious. "If you were like me.......".

Im NOT like you. I don't sit in a bubble and ignore what the hell is going on around me.

You're "evidence" was bringing up an extreme case where someone was shot in the head with a shotgun. I haven't seen anyone here say that person should be fine and not have serious issues.

I don't need a study that's approved by CBD to know that a case like that is not even close to the norm.

But keep spewing your rhetoric about skewed data, selection bias etc....

Meanwhile, alot of us will deal with reality while you scoff at the notion.

PP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave

a number like "199 out of 200" wreaks of bullshit.

---

I think you mean "reeks."

As I understand your point, Dave, you are saying that Greg's 199 out of 200 presents a couple of problems. You are *not* saying Greg's position is _wrong_ as (to borrow your language) a fact. You are instead pointing out what you see as flaws in the form of his argument, saying:

1. Calculating "199 out of 200" is not as simple as walking outside, looking for people pushing shopping carts around downtown, and asking 200 of them a series of questions. "Studies" can be, innocently or otherwise, bent, and indeed creating a true and complete study like what we hope the FDA does before approving drugs is exceedingly burdensome and we should not take it on faith that it was done by The Economist. After all, it hardly ever is.

2. Even *assuming* 199 out of 200 people in poverty have the four following criteria in common: 1. hold the same job 2. get a high school education 3. keep the same spouse 4. get out of poverty, even then it is not, strictly speaking, logically automatic that factors 1, 2, and 3 *cause* factor 4. What if, for instance, 599 out of 600 people in poverty who hold the same job over the same span get out of poverty? Does that mean of those holding a job, they should get divorced to increase their chances from 199/200 to 599/600? Or of the 199 out of 200 who get out of poverty, 40% know how to swim, but of the remaining 1 out of 200, only 5% know how to swim? Should people learn to swim? My point being, even if the *numbers* are "true" in some cosmic sense, we can order them in different ways depending on our desired outcome.

Dave, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point of your argument really has almost nothing to do with real issues of poverty, and more to do with statistics and the form of logic and debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplepoe

Meanwhile, a lot of us will deal with reality while you scoff at the notion.

---

We live in our different realities. Dave isn't saying you are wrong, I don't think, he's just saying, it's not that simple. As often as I think he knows nothing about football ;), I admire him for sticking to his guns in this thread. Let's just try to stay away from repetition. . .

Quote:

---

Long story short, he's disfigured, has a plate over the front of his head, had mental problems from said brain damage and is homeless.

---

Dude, this is a ridiculous example, if you are going to mix in people who have emotional and mental problems go ahead. I assume we were talking about the able bodied who decide that getting a job and keeping it and not having scads of out-of-wedlock children is not for them and then wonder why they are poor.

As for the 50s, yes there was racism but it would be possible to encourage nuclear families that are stable without invoking the racism of the times. I have no idea why anybody would think the two are tied at the hip. But let's look at the black family in the 1950s. A lot more fathers in the home, a lot less crime committed by and against them, a lot less children out of wedlock, etc. I can guarantee you this without looking at any data, blacks that aren't in poverty for the most part have graduated HS, gotten jobs and avoided children out of wedlock.

Quote:

---

Darb, you restrained yourself from chiming in on this learned debate for so long, I am surprised you gave in.

---

It's not chiming in on the "debate" itself, it's an annoying habit of mine having to correct people when they're wrong. Makes my married life a lot more entertaining than it really should be.:thumbup:

If people here want to start throwing degrees around, then I'll win. Mine is in a stainless steel frame with bullet proof glass. That thing is dangerous and unbreakable.:D

Quote:

---

While people who attempt to ignore those studies are often those people who can't provide any studies to validate their own stance.

Show me a study that says high school graduates are just as likely to be living at the poverty level as those who didn't graduate high school.

---

That wasn't my claim. My claim is that it isn't that simple (thank you festivus).


You can't state these things as "rules" or as "fact". If you think the example I gave is the exception to the rule, you probably need to interact with homeless people more: volunteering is a good way.


But people stating statistics as fact . . . whatever floats your boat. But there are studies out there that "prove" a variety on contradicting views. This is why we have politics or discussions of this sort.


Its like arguing over, say, you know who at the QB position. Different stats will say different things, and people on different sides will use said stats to prove that their point is "fact"


When in reality, its more of an opinion that you're supporting with a statistic that you hope is more or less based on fact.


For that matter, there is nothing worse than mistaking correlation with causation.


As for "wreaks" v. "reeks" I dont really proof read these things. I proofread a lot of things, just not message board posts. If I notice the errors after I read the thread again, then I edit.


All this said, I'll stop beating this dead horse here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave

All this said, I'll stop beating this dead horse here.

---

We all thank you.

PP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darb72

Sure you can. You can take the good and bad from anything.

Want to talk about a huge dividing point between the races? The War of Northern Aggression.
Slavery was one reason for the war, which we all agree is a bad thing.
States Rights was another reason for the war which, depending on your political leanings, is a good thing.
Slavery = Bad.
States Rights = Good.

---

You completely missed the boat! We're talking morals. A person who holds up certain values, as righteous as they may be, but practices say, slavery, or bigotry, can you call him a man of high morals? Well, you may, but I won't! Nor will I be impressed by, or value, the values held by such persons.