Lack of fathers root cause of violence

krooton said:
But is it actually the unmarriedness that causes the kids to go off the rails?

What if the actual cause for undisciplined kids also is a catalyst for relationships failing and crappy commitment values?

So the real issues causes bad kids and no marriage, rather than no marriage causing bad kids.
Click to expand...

The same occurs even when you adjust for various issues and so on.

It is the lack of a stable home environment that causes the issue, and marriage is something that promotes a more stable home environment.

Fundamentally, we're reaping the failures of a badly designed welfare state, that rewards poor behaviour and excuses people from their responsibilities. Marriage, giving financial responsibility to both individuals involved towards the other one, acts as a bit more of a break against some of this behaviour.
 
Dolph said:
Is education in this country so terrible that people are completely unable to understand statistics?

Statistics don't automatically make someone an inferior parent, what they do say is that, in a population of parents of a similar makeup, there are more bad unmarried parents than there are bad married parents.

Or alternatively, that, again from a population of similar makeup, the children of married parents are more likely to do well, less likely to be criminals and so on, compared to children of unmarried parents or single parents. This does not, in any way, mean that individual families, parents, children etc all fall into the average position.
Click to expand...

I understand the statistics of course, its just the way he generalised non married parents in the OP as inferior in a thread about lack of parenting leading to criminal behaviour, and then used the statistics to back up that statement. Children who don't have responsible parents, those that aren't taught right from wrong and don't have the right morals instilled will be more likely to turn to crime. Marriage has nothing to do with that and it never will. After all isn't that what the thread topic is about?
 
unknownsock said:
My point being there are many other factors to be taken into account other than simply stating none married people don't bring up kids aswell.

Age? Class? Location? background? etc etc
Click to expand...

The research adjusts and accounts for all of this, and the results are the same.
 
Seems that social conditioning has taken its course and shaming tactics are now in full swing in this thread.

What you mean there's no downside to marriage, ever speak with a guy thats been litrelly bent over in a divorce?
 
Last edited:
R0B75 said:
I understand the statistics of course, its just the way he generalised non married parents in the OP as inferior in a thread about lack of parenting leading to criminal behaviour, and then used the statistics to back up that statement. Children who don't have responsible parents, those that aren't taught right from wrong and don't have the right morals instilled will be more likely to turn to crime. Marriage has nothing to do with that and it never will. After all isn't that what the thread topic is about?
Click to expand...

Actually, marriage and a family as an aspiration tends to be associated with people with the right attitudes and so on towards their children.

Those who want to sponge off the state, or have no general acceptance of responsibility for their own behaviour, tend not to get married (or aspire to get married), and also tend to fail their kids.

We need to get people aspriring to have a traditional family again, not as much responsibility free sex and state money as they can. The demonisation of the traditional family under the last administration has done society no favours at all.
 
G J said:
Seems that social conditioning has taken its course and shaming tactics are now in full swing in this thread.
Click to expand...

Why is that a bad thing? Why should people not feel responsibility towards society and their kids to do the best they can for them?
 
Ok, how about a little case-study:

Couple marries.
Has 3 children over 13 years.
Divorce.
1 year later the mother (who has custody of all the kids) gets in to another relationship.
2 years later, the eldest child is murdered after becoming involved drug circles.
2 years later mother and new partner have a child together.
This child is now 16, did brilliantly in their GSCEs and is off to college this year.

So the marriage saw it's first child go down the wrong path and end up murdered at 16, with the second relationship (without marriage) has seen it's first child get to 16 without any issues.

Hypothetical? No, actual, I know these people.
 
spudbynight said:
Don't force parents to marry but educate them that it is better to be married than not.
Click to expand...

I think this shows how much you don't understand the problem and why I've been so confused about your OP.

Education is good and imo is the way to improve many things in society. But simply 'educating' people into thinking that getting married will make them better parents, is ridiculous.

People need to be educated on their responsibilities within society and their role as parents. The solution is to educate people, so that they make better parental choices, whether they choose to get married or not.

The problem with your point of view is that you see marriage as the solution, because married couples in general form a more stable environment for brining up a child. But the truth is that the solution is to educate people as to why many of the concepts of marriage are important in raising children successfully.

People who understand the commitments of marriage and the importance of what it stands for, can (and do) make just as good parents as anyone else.
 
Dolph said:
Those who want to sponge off the state, or have no general acceptance of responsibility for their own behaviour, tend not to get married (or aspire to get married), and also tend to fail their kids.
Click to expand...

And then it's being sponging than makes for bad parents, not whether or not they are married.
 
Dolph said:
Actually, marriage and a family as an aspiration tends to be associated with people with the right attitudes and so on towards their children.

Those who want to sponge off the state, or have no general acceptance of responsibility for their own behaviour, tend not to get married (or aspire to get married), and also tend to fail their kids.

We need to get people aspriring to have a traditional family again, not as much responsibility free sex and state money as they can. The demonisation of the traditional family under the last administration has done society no favours at all.
Click to expand...

I've no problem with that at all and would pretty much agree. Stability as a traditional family counts for a lot and they are obviously are more likely to bring up their children properly, but again this doesn't have to mean marriage.

I know of people who churn out children like they are a baby factory, they don't work and have probably never worked yet they have a better lifestyle than I do, all from the state! Their kids will most likely do the same and some of them will never grow up with a decent set of morals. This possibly leads to crime like we are seeing at the moment. What is the answer? A licence to have children which has to meet certain criteria??? :confused:
 
krooton said:
Ok, how about a little case-study:

Couple marries.
Has 3 children over 13 years.
Divorce.
1 year later the mother (who has custody of all the kids) gets in to another relationship.
2 years later, the eldest child is murdered after becoming involved drug circles.
2 years later mother and new partner have a child together.
This child is now 16, did brilliantly in their GSCEs and is off to college this year.

So the marriage saw it's first child go down the wrong path and end up murdered at 16, with the second relationship (without marriage) has seen it's first child get to 16 without any issues.

Hypothetical? No, actual, I know these people.
Click to expand...

The plural of anecdote is not data though.

I could also cite anecdotes both ways, but it doesn't mean anything.
 
R0B75 said:
I've no problem with that at all and would pretty much agree. Stability as a traditional family counts for a lot and they are obviously are more likely to bring up their children properly, but again this doesn't have to mean marriage.

I know of people who churn out children like they are a baby factory, they don't work and have probably never worked yet they have a better lifestyle than I do, all from the state! Their kids will most likely do the same and some of them will never grow up with a decent set of morals. This possibly leads to crime like we are seeing at the moment. What is the answer? A licence to have children which has to meet certain criteria??? :confused:
Click to expand...

The answer is to completely revamp the benefits system and to stop rewarding bad choices. No family should ever be able to recieve more on benefits than they would working minimum wage jobs.
 
Dolph said:
Why is that a bad thing? Why should people not feel responsibility towards society and their kids to do the best they can for them?
Click to expand...

Oh maybe it's the way I expressed myself I'm all for what you said, it's the shaming against the people in completely happy long term relationships if they're not married.
 
krooton said:
Ok, how about a little case-study:

Couple marries.
Has 3 children over 13 years.
Divorce.
1 year later the mother (who has custody of all the kids) gets in to another relationship.
2 years later, the eldest child is murdered after becoming involved drug circles.
2 years later mother and new partner have a child together.
This child is now 16, did brilliantly in their GSCEs and is off to college this year.

So the marriage saw it's first child go down the wrong path and end up murdered at 16, with the second relationship (without marriage) has seen it's first child get to 16 without any issues.

Hypothetical? No, actual, I know these people.
Click to expand...

I mentioned Fred and Rose West earlier.
 
Dolph said:
Actually, marriage and a family as an aspiration tends to be associated with people with the right attitudes and so on towards their children.

Those who want to sponge off the state, or have no general acceptance of responsibility for their own behaviour, tend not to get married (or aspire to get married), and also tend to fail their kids.

We need to get people aspriring to have a traditional family again, not as much responsibility free sex and state money as they can. The demonisation of the traditional family under the last administration has done society no favours at all.
Click to expand...

Exactly - it amazes me how many on this thread seem unable to grasp this.
 
R0B75 said:
I've no problem with that at all and would pretty much agree. Stability as a traditional family counts for a lot and they are obviously are more likely to bring up their children properly, but again this doesn't have to mean marriage.

I know of people who churn out children like they are a baby factory, they don't work and have probably never worked yet they have a better lifestyle than I do, all from the state! Their kids will most likely do the same and some of them will never grow up with a decent set of morals. This possibly leads to crime like we are seeing at the moment. What is the answer? A licence to have children which has to meet certain criteria??? :confused:
Click to expand...

Aren't the current government introducing a cap on benefits? So this era of more kids = more money will end.
 
alx said:
Aren't the current government introducing a cap on benefits? So this era of more kids = more money will end.
Click to expand...

They are, but it is still way too high. To reach the capped benefit amount, you need to be earning approx £35k, way above the average wage.

It's why I much prefer a negative income tax model, as you can never be better off not working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom