MSNBC-Melissa Harris-Perry says "kids belong to whole communities"

[michal1980]

Here we go:
Was I wrong?


http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/09/why-caring-for-children-is-not-just-a-parents-job/



The defective brain of the right strikes again. By the way what policies was she pushing? Lol

If she's not pushing an agenda, then why the fuck does she have an ad out, and keeps talking?

Of course she's pushing something. Her long worded shitty article can be summed up to say...

I don't want your kids, but society should take care of them. Because society will do a better job then you.


or maybe better put..

"I'm not sayin'. i'm just sayin'"

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Quoted for being a very misleading pile of partisan BS.

Please back up your comment with facts.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Please back up your comment with facts.

I'm sure the figures are accurate. The problem is the specific inference of cause and effect, which I find extremely dubious.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sure the figures are accurate. The problem is the specific inference of cause and effect, which I find extremely dubious.

So you don't see any reason why single parents might be more likely to be poor than a married couple?

I mean off the top of my head:

(1) Pure math: The poverty line for a family of 3 is less than that for a family of 2 + a single person.

(2) Having 2 parents cuts down on daycare costs

(3) By having a man who is willing to marry, a woman most likely gets herself a better quality of man.

(4) By being married first a woman likely has a man who is actually interested in being a father instead of having the government try to force him to "man up".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm sure the figures are accurate. The problem is the specific inference of cause and effect, which I find extremely dubious.

The correlation appears to be huge; however, I'm all ears if you have something which backs up your assertion that the correlation is extremely dubious.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm not disputing the correlation. I'm disputing the conclusions that some people jump to as a result.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm not disputing the correlation. I'm disputing the conclusions that some people jump to as a result.

I fully understand that correlation does not imply causation...please elaborate on which "extremely dubious" conclusions people were jumping to based on the data presented.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm not disputing the correlation. I'm disputing the conclusions that some people jump to as a result.

Why don't you present some plausible explanations?

 

[xBiffx]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm not disputing the correlation. I'm disputing the conclusions that some people jump to as a result.

Sorry, that preface simply doesn't apply here. There is no conclusion being drawn by that graph. It is simply showing child poverty rates with regards to number of parents. No need to say one caused the other. The numbers speak for themselves.

Its akin to showing a graph of the number of burgers consumed by fat people and skinny people. If that graph showed a huge number of burgers for fat people and not skinny people would you have an issue with it? Would you say that one isn't causing the other?

No conclusion has to be drawn from either that graphic or the one in question here. Again, numbers speak for themselves.

EDIT: Now if you would like to talk about confirmation bias then perhaps there is some of that here. But with such a common sense topic I doubt that's playing too much into either graphic as well.

 

[nextJin]

So with her new statements does that mean she basically said "communities are important"?

It's like an ever revolving door, just tell us what you want instead of saying what everyone on this planet already knows.

Just like all of the other Lean Forward ads, they are pushing agendas. They just can't come out and say it trying to be bipartisan.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I fully understand that correlation does not imply causation...please elaborate on which "extremely dubious" conclusions people were jumping to based on the data presented.

How about this: "A graph illustrating what happens when a child’s parents refuse to accept responsibility for that child."

It was right in the same post as the graph. Did I really have to spell it out for you?

Anyone who needed a chart to realize that families with a married couple are less likely to be poor than single mothers was pretty clueless to begin with. But being divorced doesn't automatically mean that children will live in poverty.

Poverty can lead to divorce as readily as divorce leads to poverty.

ETA: If you fully understand the difference between correlation and causation, you should avoid responding to a post about cause and effect talking about correlation.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How about this: "A graph illustrating what happens when a child’s parents refuse to accept responsibility for that child."

It was right in the same post as the graph. Did I really have to spell it out for you?

Anyone who needed a chart to realize that families with a married couple are less likely to be poor than single mothers was pretty clueless to begin with. But being divorced doesn't automatically mean that children will live in poverty.

Poverty can lead to divorce as readily as divorce leads to poverty.

ETA: If you fully understand the difference between correlation and causation, you should avoid responding to a post about cause and effect talking about correlation.

First of all, I don't appreciate your arrogance and condescending attitude. Secondly, I don't believe anyone said that being divorced or unwed automatically means that their children will live in poverty. This is blatant dishonesty on your part. If anyone is guilty of "extremely dubious" conclusions...it's you.

 

[nehalem256]

How about this: "A graph illustrating what happens when a child’s parents refuse to accept responsibility for that child."

It was right in the same post as the graph. Did I really have to spell it out for you?

Anyone who needed a chart to realize that families with a married couple are less likely to be poor than single mothers was pretty clueless to begin with. But being divorced doesn't automatically mean that children will live in poverty.

Nor does the chart make that claim. It just makes it 5 times more likely.

Poverty can lead to divorce as readily as divorce leads to poverty.

ETA: If you fully understand the difference between correlation and causation, you should avoid responding to a post about cause and effect talking about correlation.

Except that when Poverty was more prevalent divorce was less prevalent.

 

[zsdersw]

Except that when Poverty was more prevalent divorce was less prevalent.

If you're referring to the years you idolize.. the 1950s.. yes, poverty was more prevalent because we had neither the technology (agricultural and otherwise) nor the infrastructure to feed as many people as we do now.

 

[xBiffx]

If you're referring to the years you idolize.. the 1950s.. yes, poverty was more prevalent because we had neither the technology (agricultural and otherwise) nor the infrastructure to feed as many people as we do now.

What does poverty have to do with feeding people? For sure some living in poverty go hungry but having the ability to feed people doesn't get rid of poverty.

 

[nehalem256]

If you're referring to the years you idolize.. the 1950s.. yes, poverty was more prevalent because we had neither the technology (agricultural and otherwise) nor the infrastructure to feed as many people as we do now.

And yet divorce was less prevalent.

The idea that poverty should lead to more divorce is essentially completely disproven by history.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you're referring to the years you idolize.. the 1950s.. yes, poverty was more prevalent because we had neither the technology (agricultural and otherwise) nor the infrastructure to feed as many people as we do now.

That's interesting. I've never heard anyone make an argument that proverty was more prevalent in the '50s due to lack of technology and infrastructure to feed them. *cough* horseshit *cough*

 

[zsdersw]

That's interesting. I've never heard anyone make an argument that proverty was more prevalent in the '50s due to lack of technology and infrastructure to feed them. *cough* horseshit *cough*

Fact: we were not able to feed as many people back then as we are today.
Fact: food distribution was much less sophisticated

Hunger's relation to poverty is reciprocal; poverty causes hunger, and hunger can cause people to remain in poverty.

These are not the only reasons poverty was higher back then, but they are reasons.

 

[zsdersw]

The idea that poverty should lead to more divorce is essentially completely disproven by history.

Given how fickle people are today and the reasons they get divorced, poverty would easily be enough to split a marriage.

 

[xBiffx]

Fact: we were not able to feed as many people back then as we are today.
Fact: food distribution was much less sophisticated

Hunger's relation to poverty is reciprocal; poverty causes hunger, and hunger can cause people to remain in poverty.

These are not the only reasons poverty was higher back then, but they are reasons.

Fact: there were less people to feed back then.

You are continuing to conflate poverty with hunger or the ability to feed people. Please stop.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fact: we were not able to feed as many people back then as we are today.
Fact: food distribution was much less sophisticated

These are not the only reasons poverty was higher back then, but they are reasons.

Fact: Food distribution issues had nothing to do with poverty levels in the 50s.

Fact: Advances in farming technology during the 50s actually caused massive unemployment (primarily among blacks in the South migrating from rural areas to the Northern cities in search of employment) and was the predominent reason for increased poverty levels during this period.

 

[zsdersw]

Fact: there were less people to feed back then.

Not proportionally less.

You are continuing to conflate poverty with hunger or the ability to feed people. Please stop.

No, I will not. They are related; they cause each other.

 

[zsdersw]

Fact: Food distribution issues had nothing to do with poverty levels in the 50s.

Wrong.

Fact: Advances in farming technology during the 50s actually caused massive unemployment (primarily among blacks in the South migrating from rural areas to the Northern cities in search of employment) and was the predominent reason for increased poverty levels during this period.

No, inflation, the end of WW2 (and start of Korean war), and sharp increases in consumer prices were the dominant reasons for increased poverty during that period.

 

[xBiffx]

Not proportionally less.



No, I will not. They are related; they cause each other.

The ability to feed people has nothing to do with poverty. Poverty exists regardless of food levels.

 

[zsdersw]

The ability to feed people has nothing to do with poverty. Poverty exists regardless of food levels.

Hunger and poverty are related.

Malnutrition was a significant problem in the US before the mass-fortification of foods began in the late 50s. What causes malnutrition? That's a food quantity, quality, and access problem... ie, hunger and poverty.