Kevin Myers writes something repugnant

sock puppet wrote: »

It's a completely meaningless statistic unless adjusted for other factors. So no he has nothing to back up his opinion that children of single mothers are more likely to be delinquant.

edit: well they are clearly more likely to be delinquant I suppose. However he's presented no evidence that there's any link between the two.

Is the statistic not the link between the two?

"No fewer than 70pc of young offenders in Britain are from single-parent families"

I don't know what the percentage is of single parent comprised of all parents but I don't think it is 70% of all families, it would be way way lower so the statistic is certainly worthy of mentioning.

lastlaugh wrote: »

I don't understand your problem with it.

I think he makes valid points, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 'his many prejudices'.

Have you anything better to say than him?

Greta Wide Visionary wrote: »

I don't disagree with him.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK how about the OP counters the Factual Inacuarcies in Myers article

I read it today too, and I have to agree with the man, the Problem stems from Black single parent Familys where the lack of a Father figure and a culture of Handouts has led to these lads believing that they can do whatever they want without fear of serious reprecussions

Mahatma coat wrote: »

* 1) But, the problem is the Single parent Children, they have had no discipline, no authority figure in their lives, who's fault is it that the children grow up to be antisocial?? I say its the parents, unless you think that raising children is someone elses job.

also, and history bears this out
2 *If the mother was a Tramp who opened her legs for any passing stranger to knock her up You can bet that the Daughter wil be as bad

1)While all of these things can be true, you contradict yourself in this post, you say the problem is the single parent children, and then say its the parents fault, parents as in plural. If a man fathers a child with a woman, and refuses to play a part in that childs life theres little or nothing the mother can do, except muddle through on her own, and sometimes its logistically impossible to get a job that will pay the bills/food/heating etc and cover the cost of the childminder (which bty are often on higher money than the minimum wage the mother will be earning)


Wow, dont quite know where to start with that one. While yes, kids live what they learn, I think your opinion of single mothers is obvious in this post. What about the guys who target these women cause they know they're an easy lay, and end up fathering kids with most of the local bikes but takes responsibility for none of them?? These blokes are equally responsible dont you think or do you think Im just being a 'feminazi' and also i doubt these blokes are workin hard all week.

And lastly, but not least, not every woman who ends up on her own started off this way, they dont all have a non ending que of lads waitin outside the door for thier go. Some of them have come from broken marriages, where the 'dad' claims poverty and pisses off, leaving mammy to cope on her own. And some are widows who not only lost thier husbands, but thier homes etc



fyi as far as that a*rse is concerned, making ridiculous statements such as "women were actively encouraged to be unmarried mothers to further the feminist goal" is not only laughable, but shows up his sheer stupidity and just how out of touch he is with reality..........he'd make a great politician, he'd fit right in :rolleyes:

sock puppet wrote: »

When presented the wrong way, as Myers has done, statistics can be used to show lots of relationships that don't really exist. It's pretty much outright lying.

Unless you have the statistics, it is a lot more wild for you to say it is a lie based on nothing.

Unrelated, but I remember living beside a prison guard who said the vast majority of prisoners in the prison he worked at were from a very small number of areas in Dublin, so statistically he could have said "if you were from these areas, you were a lot more likely to end up in prison then if you were born and brought up in another area".

Obviously there are more factors, but myers did not close the argument saying this is the only factor. It's a debate, so let it continue.

sock puppet wrote: »

It isn't necessarily a causal link, which is why that statistic alone is meaningless.

Well, I don't think it is meaningless, just limited.

filthymcnasty wrote: »

I agree with some of it but him saying those in the riot are mainly afro-carribbean/black is bull****, going by TV coverage they are of all backgrounds.

As the riots moved on from the first few days, yes you are seeing scum of all colours now, but initially and over most of the days, they are mainly afro-carribbean black. It's one of those "I dare not speak the obvious truth" kind of thing.

white1awake wrote: »

I adore Kevin Myers, and I especially loved his tribute to the 30 fallen Americans /Sealsangels, heroes, freedom fornicators, on the sands of Afghanistan this past week:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-brave-us-soldiers-gave-their-lives-for-us-all-2842750.html

I am doubly chuffed to see how many here appreciate his views.....brightened this somewhat dreary day.

Fixed that for ya, goes more with the theme of that article.

God I hate defending Myers, but like I said, he raises good points, worthy of investigation.

lastlaugh wrote: »

Moore purposely edited material from different NRA meetings to mislead viewers into thinking they are some kind of evil organisation with Charlton Heston as their leader.

Myers has used what I guess are valid statistics to back up his opinion.

There is a big difference between the two.

I would agree. Moore would the of the same kind of journalism that Glenn Beck is, just on the opposite side.

Myers would not be in the same league as these guys at all, even if he writes crap a lot.

coonecb1 wrote: »

Michael Moore the equal but opposite to Glenn Back. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Moore is a liberal film maker who selectively edits SOME material for the purpose of making a valid point.

Glenn Beck is a raving sociopath who thinks America is under iminent threat of Sharia law, Communism and Fascism AT THE SAME TIME.

How you can equate the two of them as being just as bad as each other is complete and utter rubbish

Don't know about that. But I am glad you call him a film maker and not a documentary film maker. They may have different methods and voice levels, but they both completely distort the truth in such passionate ways.

Hes completely right, any woman who has a child out of wedlock should immediately be forced to adopt the child out, or else have it put down, in order to save society from ordeals such as this