Project 2025

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-21-2024, 04:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, there is very much a social condition that is not contingent on acknowledging any of the above, the fatherless household.  As previously mentioned children do significantly better throughout life when a father is present in the house.  Even in single parent households, the results are statistically better if that single parent is the father.  Now, one might argue that the "far left" has been rather dismissive of the role of fathers in child development.  One might even argue that third wave feminism has actively denigrated that role.  But one thing can be said with absolute certainty, a fatherless household is most assuredly not a conservative position.  And, I'm sorry to say, personal accountability absolutely plays a role in this problem.

That is not part of their narrative.

Prepare for a swivel to minutia...

[Dill]

(06-21-2024, 04:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If I'm on the far right, the only social "conditions" that degrade families which I can acknowledge are "far left" social policies. Otherwise, there is no effective or affectable connection between social environment (e.g., poverty, crime, lack of educational/employment/housing opportunity)  and the family problems you'd address above. Those are all traced to individuals who make bad choices, which begins with ignoring the Bible and flouting traditional role models and family ideals.  ...
So you are dealing with a total world view here, in which inquiry into social problems stops with "personal accountability," except where government polices are concerned. 

Actually, there is very much a social condition that is not contingent on acknowledging any of the above, the fatherless household.  As previously mentioned children do significantly better throughout life when a father is present in the house.  Even in single parent households, the results are statistically better if that single parent is the father.  Now, one might argue that the "far left" has been rather dismissive of the role of fathers in child development.  One might even argue that third wave feminism has actively denigrated that role.  But one thing can be said with absolute certainty, a fatherless household is most assuredly not a conservative position.  And, I'm sorry to say, personal accountability absolutely plays a role in this problem.

I agree that "a fatherless household is most assuredly not a conservative position" in the sense conservatives don't advocate or approve of such.
But I don't see how your description of the fatherless household is "not contingent on acknowledging any of the above." 

You've left some space here for social causation--3rd wave feminism and a dismissive "far left."

Otherwise your inquiry into this "social problem" appears to terminate with "personal accountability." 

No reference to poverty, segregation or other possible causes of family breakdown. The fatherless household is just there.
Statistical evidence (what some might call "minutia") associates it with many negative outcomes.  But none is offered
from the other direction, from the social environment TO fatherless households. 

Have I understood you correctly? What did I miss? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2024, 05:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree that "a fatherless household is most assuredly not a conservative position" in the sense conservatives don't advocate or approve of such.
But I don't see how your description of the fatherless household is "not contingent on acknowledging any of the above." 

You've left some space here for social causation--3rd wave feminism and a dismissive "far left."

Otherwise your inquiry into this "social problem" appears to terminate with "personal accountability." 

No reference to poverty, segregation or other possible causes of family breakdown. The fatherless household is just there.

Have I understood you correctly? What did I miss? 

Poverty does not cause single parent homes, single parent homes do cause poverty.  There is no segregation in this country.  As for other possible causes, I provided some.   

[Dill]

(06-21-2024, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Poverty does not cause single parent homes, single parent homes do cause poverty. 

What causes single parent homes? Have you any "minutia" to show how it is unrelated to poverty?  

(06-21-2024, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is no segregation in this country.  As for other possible causes, I provided some.   

There used to be legal and other forms of explicit segregation, which were not "far left" policies, and had a very negative effect on the social environment of the segregated, and on families whose sons and fathers faced higher proportion of arrest and imprisonment.

And many of its effects remain today, especially with regards to housing and educational opportunity.  

Your other possible causes--3rd wave feminism and "far left' dismissal, were acknowledged. But now I'll add they don't seem adequate to explain
the rise of single parent homes, which began long before 3rd wave feminism appeared in universities in the 1090s. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2024, 05:29 PM)Dill Wrote: What causes single parent homes? Have you any "minutia" to show how it is unrelated to poverty?

Have you?  You made the claim.  

Quote:There used to be legal and other forms of explicit segregation, which were not "far left" policies, and had a very negative effect on the social environment of the segregated, and on families whose sons and fathers faced higher proportion of arrest and imprisonment.

And many of its effects remain today, especially with regards to housing and educational opportunity.  

Yes, used to.  Do they still have some effect today, sure.  But we don't have segregation any loner in contrast to your claim.

Quote:Your other possible causes--3rd wave feminism and "far left' dismissal, were acknowledged. But now I'll add they don't seem adequate to explain
the rise of single parent homes, which began long before 3rd wave feminism appeared in universities in the 1090s. 

Sure, second wave feminism.

As you're clearly dying to throw in your own examples of causes please do so and stop blue balling us all.

[Dill]

(06-21-2024, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Have you?  You made the claim.  

I made the claim that right wing inquiry into social problems tends to terminate in personal accountability. 
Individuals are the cause of their own problems.

Except for government policies and feminism ("leftist" ideas) they generally find the source of bad behavior
in the person, not in the economy or educational access or other aspects of the social environment that might be addressed by policy. 

You claimed that single parent homes cause poverty.

I'm merely asking what causes single-parent homes.  Is it 2nd wave feminism too, now? 

[Dill]

(06-21-2024, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, used to.  Do they still have some effect today, sure.  But we don't have segregation any loner in contrast to your claim.
Sure, second wave feminism.
As you're clearly dying to throw in your own examples of causes please do so and stop blue balling us all.

Though segregation is no longer legal or open, during it's hundred years between 1865 and 1965, one consequence of it was that urban Black families were
concentrated in poor, sometimes dangerous housing areas, from which they found it difficult to leave for a number or reasons, including fewer employment
opportunities, and from which black sons and fathers were arrested and incarcerated in proportionally higher numbers. 

The moment segregation became illegal, all those "ghettos" and their effects did not suddenly disappear; Blacks continued to be arrested and incarcerated at higher rates.
That means more homes without fathers, more black mothers adjusting to life without husbands and fathers. 

I think there are a lot of causes of single parent homes, starting with the "natural" ones, like the death of one parent, and then less natural ones like divorce and drug/alcohol addiction. But when significant differences in the proportion of single parent homes emerge between different demographics, and one demographic has generally had more access to wealth, personal security, and a lower incarceration rate, then one is entitled to wonder such social factors might explain the difference. 

It's not clear why 2nd wave feminism would answer the call here, since that was mostly focused on equal pay and access to education and careers--the concerns of middle and upper class women. But the advance of women's equality could be a contributing factor in the case of both Black and white families. 

A much more popular explanation from the right is the "culture of poverty." The poor adapt to their poverty by embracing deficient values and behaviors, which become generational. Guilder's Wealth and Poverty (1981) fuses that CoP with Christianity to advocate for supply-side economics. The deficient values of poor families would be transformed by Christianized males socialized to take care of their wives and homes by working hard and generating wealth, etc.  Women need to remain chaste until marriage, so they've a role too, but the emphasis is on the fathers stepping up, propelled by newfound faith, not government handouts. 

[Lucidus]

(06-18-2024, 06:17 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What's saddest is i have brought up the compromise before in several of these Abortion threads, and usually none of them agree but it's a thread killer when i do bring it up, or the Subject gets rapidly changed.

I'm just curious if any of our Left leaning posters have actually agreed to the No Abortions after the first Tri-Mester (Hollerdo doesn't count, he's the only Left leaning poster I can recall that's in favor of the compromise). 

I think that a fair and reasonable compromise needs to fall between the first trimester - where 93% of all abortions already happen - and the earliest point of fetal viability outside the womb, which is generally considered to be around 24 months. 

In previous posts, I've stated that I feel 20 weeks seems to best grant the mother a reasonable length of autonomy, while also securing a point at which the right of the fetus to have the opportunity of life supersedes the mother's autonomy. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-25-2024, 05:57 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I think that a fair and reasonable compromise needs to fall between the first trimester - where 93% of all abortions already happen - and the earliest point of fetal viability outside the womb, which is generally considered to be around 24 months. 

In previous posts, I've stated that I feel 20 weeks seems to best grant the mother a reasonable length of autonomy, while also securing a point at which the right of the fetus to have the opportunity of life supersedes the mother's autonomy. 

Thanks Lucidus, (Long time no see),
I don't mind if someone doesn't completely agree with the first tri-mester (then medical reasons thereafter), or has another condition they'd like to add. Overall, I think you would accept the first tri-mester at this time, as it's better than nothing. Add ons might make it a bit too complicated at this time. 

Still no idea why so many won't agree or partially agree with this as a compromise. (aside from the majority on the Right, only 3 so far from the Left). 

[SunsetBengal]

(06-25-2024, 05:57 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I think that a fair and reasonable compromise needs to fall between the first trimester - where 93% of all abortions already happen - and the earliest point of fetal viability outside the womb, which is generally considered to be around 24 months. 

In previous posts, I've stated that I feel 20 weeks seems to best grant the mother a reasonable length of autonomy, while also securing a point at which the right of the fetus to have the opportunity of life supersedes the mother's autonomy. 

 What?? I certainly hope they're not considering aborting two year olds.

[Dill]

(06-25-2024, 05:57 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Mike M (the other one) Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Project-2025?pid=1487550#pid1487550][/url]What's saddest is i have brought up the compromise before in several of these Abortion threads, and usually none of them agree but it's a thread killer when i do bring it up, or the Subject gets rapidly changed.
I'm just curious if any of our Left leaning posters have actually agreed to the No Abortions after the first Tri-Mester (Hollerdo doesn't count, he's the only Left leaning poster I can recall that's in favor of the compromise). 

I think that a fair and reasonable compromise needs to fall between the first trimester - where 93% of all abortions already happen - and the earliest point of fetal viability outside the womb, which is generally considered to be around 24 months. 
In previous posts, I've stated that I feel 20 weeks seems to best grant the mother a reasonable length of autonomy, while also securing a point at which the right of the fetus to have the opportunity of life supersedes the mother's autonomy. 

Discussions about abortion "compromise" don't get very far because right now the actual effective political question is whether abortion should be allowed at all. 

Project 2025 and their corporate/congressional backers aren't soliciting compromise suggestions.  Department of Life and that's that. 

Though I'm with Sunset when it comes to 2-year olds.  I'll support any ban on abortions AFTER nine months. 

(Welcome back, Lucidus!) 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-19-2024, 07:25 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? I'm guilty about defending myself?? How? Where? From what??

No one asked you whether LGBTQ were "protected." The question was whether you support equal rights for LGBTQ citizens. 

I'm not getting a clear answer on whether you, having declared yourself "more open-minded" than I, support equal rights for LGBTQ citizens.

I asked you of you think the LGBTQ rights are more important that the Womens rights, specifically in women only sports. 
The LGBTQ are a protected group. I have no issues with their rights and defending them, except in Women's sports, for the simple reason they are not biological women. Their bodies are built differently from day 1. 

(06-19-2024, 07:25 PM)Dill Wrote: What we "covered" is that your "perception" differs from what Bukter actually said. Mine does not. 
In post #44 you wrote: If you chose the men over the women, then you are no better than Harrison Butker. 

That assumes Butker chooses men over women, doesn't it? Or is that only my "perception" again? 

Yes if that's your perception, then i will hold  you to it for picking Trans Mens rights over women's rights. Because that's the perception you built, so you have to stick with it.  

(06-19-2024, 07:25 PM)Dill Wrote: I'll "own" that I don't think trans people with muscular-skeletal frames that developed as masculine should be allowed to compete in women's sports, though I think women should be allowed to compete in some men's sports--football, soccer, wrestling, basketball, baseball, hockey--if they can make the team. No one can claim they have a special advantage. 

As far as the legal challenge to Title IX, that's 96 pages and I'm still reading it. On the surface the "gender" addition is certainly parallel to other kinds of discrimination. The question is whether and the degree to which its imposition harms another group.  

Flip-Flop, so you aren't always about equal rights. Lia Thomas says "shame on you."