“Children of single mothers are ill raised, aggressive and ignorant” Watch

bubblecat
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Drewski)
Of course it's the same :rolleyes:

Both sides are just as bad as each other, don't kid yourself.
clearly out of the two of us i am not the one kidding myself...
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
This study is comparing inter-country behaviour, not inter-generational behaviour.
That is irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that the UK has always been in the position of having worse behaviour than any other country. Which I don't think even you are silly enough to do.

It's a report from a highly respected organisation which shows the answer to whether UK kids are badly behaved is a resounding 'yes'. You, on the other hand, have produced an introduction from the Economist - the rest of the article is behind a paywall so no-one can make a judgement as to whether or not the study is relevant in answering the question. The other 'evidence' you've provided is from a joke source.

co
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by bubblecat)
clearly out of the two of us i am not the one kidding myself...
If that's what you need to tell yourself to justify your side, then fine, crack on.

The rest of us who understand both sides to be a bunch of tools will sit here and laugh.
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Reality Check)
That is irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that the UK has always been in the position of having worse behaviour than any other country. Which I don't think even you are silly enough to do.

It's a report from a highly respected organisation which shows the answer to whether UK kids are badly behaved is a resounding 'yes'. You, on the other hand, have produced an introduction from the Economist - the rest of the article is behind a paywall so no-one can make a judgement as to whether or not the study is relevant in answering the question. The other 'evidence' you've provided is from a joke source.

co
I asked you to provide a source that today’s teens are worse behaved than previous generations; instead you have provided me an article comparing behaviours of today’s teens with the same generation in other countries; it couldn’t be more irrelevant if you tried

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.i...ed-generation/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.d...ac75aaf8fb32ee
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I asked you to provide a source that today’s teens are worse behaved than previous generations; instead you have provided me an article comparing behaviours of today’s teens with the same generation in other countries; it couldn’t be more irrelevant if you tried

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.i...ed-generation/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.d...ac75aaf8fb32ee
Not content with having provided a joke source beforehand, you go on to provide another one! Your first source is about as reliable as a blog. Even worse, the 'Daily Telegraph' article is actually the Australian newspaper of the same name, and the link you've provided points to the subscription page :facepalm: I think in fact I"m getting you confused with another user: you clearly don't know anything about what constitutes a reliable source and what is not.

More generally, you're falling into the TSR trap of thinking that every argument has to be referenced somehow (usually using dodgy sources such as you have provided off the internet) to make it 'valid', rather than using evidence and knowledge that you already have and thinking for yourself. I don't need evidence to be able to draw a conclusion that kids behaviour has deteriorated over the years. Why did we never hear of teachers being physically assaulted in our schools on a regular basis? Why did we never hear of twelve-year-olds being regularly admitted into A&E with stab wounds and injuries usually found on a battlefield, not on the streets.... Because it didn't used to happen. This is not indicative of an 'improvement in behaviour'. Yes, not all kids get involved in this stuff - but more and more do.

It would help you to think about things more deeply and clearly, rather than desperately search the internet for sources, any sources no matter their validity or credibility, to make an argument that holds water.
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Reality Check)
Not content with having provided a joke source beforehand, you go on to provide another one! Your first source is about as reliable as a blog. Even worse, the 'Daily Telegraph' article is actually the Australian newspaper of the same name, and the link you've provided points to the subscription page :facepalm: I think in fact I"m getting you confused with another user: you clearly don't know anything about what constitutes a reliable source and what is not.

More generally, you're falling into the TSR trap of thinking that every argument has to be referenced somehow (usually using dodgy sources such as you have provided off the internet) to make it 'valid', rather than using evidence and knowledge that you already have and thinking for yourself. I don't need evidence to be able to draw a conclusion that kids behaviour has deteriorated over the years. Why did we never hear of teachers being physically assaulted in our schools on a regular basis? Why did we never hear of twelve-year-olds being regularly admitted into A&E with stab wounds and injuries usually found on a battlefield, not on the streets.... Because it didn't used to happen. This is not indicative of an 'improvement in behaviour'. Yes, not all kids get involved in this stuff - but more and more do.

It would help you to think about things more deeply and clearly, rather than desperately search the internet for sources, any sources no matter their validity or credibility, to make an argument that holds water.
There is literally the study in the first source I provided... I wouldn’t call the National Survey on Drug Use and Health a joke either
Last edited by AngryRedhead; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Wired_1800)
That is fair. I agree he should not be locked up, but women should protest by voting for the Labour Party.
1
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Reality Check)
Why did we never hear of teachers being physically assaulted in our schools on a regular basis? Why did we never hear of twelve-year-olds being regularly admitted into A&E with stab wounds and injuries usually found on a battlefield, not on the streets.... Because it didn't used to happen. This is not indicative of an 'improvement in behaviour'. Yes, not all kids get involved in this stuff - but more and more do.
Did you play outside unsupervised as a kid?

"Sure"

Would you let your own kids play outside unsupervised now?

"HAHAHAHAHA! Yr fking kidding right?"

..sounds about right :P
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by StriderHort)
Did you play outside unsupervised as a kid?

"Sure"

Would you let your own kids play outside unsupervised now?

"HAHAHAHAHA! Yr fking kidding right?"

..sounds about right :P
:laugh: exactly.
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Reality Check)
:laugh: exactly.
Here is the study you poo-poo’d as a joke referenced in the source I provided; from The University of Cambridge

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...1D6417BEBDAEC#
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Here is the study you poo-poo’d as a joke referenced in the source I provided; from The University of Cambridge

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...1D6417BEBDAEC#
:rofl: It's a study of American adolescents. How is this relevant to what's happening on the streets of Bermondsey or Ladbroke Grove?
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Reality Check)
:rofl: It's a study of American adolescents. How is this relevant to what's happening on the streets of Bermondsey or Ladbroke Grove?
American culture is a lot like British culture; it’s quite reasonable to apply the results of this study to our youths too. In any case, you have failed to provide me with any studies that would that suggest otherwise apart from one from an institution nobody has ever heard of comparing British youth behaviour to other youth behaviour.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.i...794.html%3famp
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
hes right...

Single parent families are awful for children. Its just a question of how bad are they, to which many studies give many different answers.. not whether they are bad or not.

Its also incredibly hypocritical though because the conservative government over the last 9 years has done nothing to conserve the institution of marriage, the one thing that binds families together. Instead its a tory government who is ready to bring in no-fault divorces, and make it even more easy to become a single parent. They have also fairly fully embraced the liberal values that are pushing the family unit into extinction.

The family unit will be the minority within my life time.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
as for kids behaving worse over time.. its not true universally. Middle-class and upper-class kids are about the same as they have always been.

But there has been an absolute gutting of working-class authority structures that has lead to a growing underclass of young people.

This is largely down to the following:

1, The breakdown of the family unit, meaning workingclass boys are less likely to have fathers and grandfathers.
2, Adults in general have given up their authority over children, meaning on other figure is diciplining them
3, The ban on smacking leaves many mums who are not capable of using logical/emotional dicipline, without the ability to dicipline their kids at all

---

The result is that there has been a decline in behavoiral standards of young people, but not one that's evenly distributed.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
Despite the utterly atrocious way he put it, interlaced with a fair few generalizing slurs, his point about single mothers with half a dozen kids to different 'fathers' isnt actually that wide of the mark. Never mind the fact this was written decades ago for the Spectator... a fact i rather doubt isnt relevant here.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
And how many children has Mr Johnson fathered whose mum he was or never has been married to?
4
reply
Caitdav246
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Drewski)
The thing that'll really piss you off though is that the bold bit is right.

Kids from single parent households do tend to, on average, be more likely to become that type of kid.

Do all? Of course not.
But is it a politically accurate statement? Accurate enough that numbers will back him up.
It’s classist, mostly gender based discrimination. There’s been plenty of horrible people born in to perfect heteronormative 2 parent families and plenty of well rounded, happy people that come from broken families. Boris Johnson is an elitist stain that hates the most vulnerable in society and this aligns with his voting patterns NOT just from 25 years ago. Have a lovely day👍🏼
4
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#78
Report 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Napp)
Despite the utterly atrocious way he put it, interlaced with a fair few generalizing slurs, his point about single mothers with half a dozen kids to different 'fathers' isnt actually that wide of the mark. Never mind the fact this was written decades ago for the Spectator... a fact i rather doubt isnt relevant here.
Please rep someone else
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
as for kids behaving worse over time.. its not true universally. Middle-class and upper-class kids are about the same as they have always been.

But there has been an absolute gutting of working-class authority structures that has lead to a growing underclass of young people.

This is largely down to the following:

1, The breakdown of the family unit, meaning workingclass boys are less likely to have fathers and grandfathers.
2, Adults in general have given up their authority over children, meaning on other figure is diciplining them
3, The ban on smacking leaves many mums who are not capable of using logical/emotional dicipline, without the ability to dicipline their kids at all

---

The result is that there has been a decline in behavoiral standards of young people, but not one that's evenly distributed.
Please rep someone else

Absolutely spot on, I was going to type something along the same lines yesterday to AngryRedhead and in reply to others also. but I refrained from doing so because I thought it would almost certainly result in ad hominem attacks on myself, this seems to the default position when a logical veiw point challenges enough to make them think about their own veiws.

I would of wrote something baced on facts, its unilaterally agreed by experts and stuidies have found children raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market.

I guess they are all just misogynistic :rolleyes:
1
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
hes right...

Single parent families are awful for children. Its just a question of how bad are they, to which many studies give many different answers.. not whether they are bad or not.

Its also incredibly hypocritical though because the conservative government over the last 9 years has done nothing to conserve the institution of marriage, the one thing that binds families together. Instead its a tory government who is ready to bring in no-fault divorces, and make it even more easy to become a single parent. They have also fairly fully embraced the liberal values that are pushing the family unit into extinction.

The family unit will be the minority within my life time.
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Please rep someone else

Please rep someone else

Absolutely spot on, I was going to type something along the same lines yesterday to AngryRedhead and in reply to others also. but I refrained from doing so because I thought it would almost certainly result in ad hominem attacks on myself, this seems to the default position when a logical veiw point challenges enough to make them think about their own veiws.

I would of wrote something baced on facts, its unilaterally agreed by experts and stuidies have found children raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market.

I guess they are all just misogynistic :rolleyes:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0705095332.htm
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 weeks ago
#80
That study only looks at sibgle-mother-by-choice rather than single parents as a whole group. It should be pretty obvious that those who choose that lifestyle will be better at it and better prepared for it than those who are forced into it.

I'm not that interested in having a debate that just ends up with each other throwing out studies and critiquing each others. Especially as it doesn't seem like your very capable of this kind of research and compilation.

Once you start trying to back up a complex social issue like this, a single study is irrelevant because the issues bdcome so multifaceted and dimensional. Any single study can be shown not to show the real picture, and the only way we can get to the bottom of it is to compile many and use them to create and form our possition. That means a referenced essay, which I'm not going to be doing on tsr.. I did enough of those in my masters about similar societal issues.

If we can accept that in general children of single parents perform worse on average, but by how much and in what parameter isn't clear from the mass of research, than we actually discuss something interesting. Like Boris and the fact that he has a habit of saying quite liberal things, in offensive ways. For example, his offensive musllim woman comment, was in an article in support of their choice to wear what he wants.. and his offensive words about the working class have come in articles where argues in favour of working class issues.

What is worse, a person who says something wrong, but uses polite words, or a person who says something right, but uses offensive words? Basically Cameron Vs Boris. Boris is far more liberal but Cameron is far more Polite and inofensive.. I think progressives of the two should prefer the Boris style, but it seems like for many the offense trumps the meaning.
Last edited by fallen_acorns; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (349)
46.41%
No (80)
10.64%
I'm not old enough (323)
42.95%

Watched Threads

View All