NBC employee claims Bill Cosby paid off women, invited young models to dressing room.

[Master Zik]

Ah yes, the infamous Zik sarcasm!

Nothing about that post you quoted was sarcasm.

At all. Got no clue what you're reaching for.

What part of the post do you think is sarcasm?

Is sarcasm the right choice of word you meant to use? I legit don't get this.

I also missed when I was known for my sarcasm on NT Especially if its infamous. Can anyone else fill me in on that?

It's always a pattern with you:

1.) Enter discussion with a sarcastic comment.

2.) Double down on initial comment.

3.) Push back when comment is challenge.

4.) Bog down thread with endless drivel.

5.) Find new thread and refer back to #1.

This is interesting but false. Well not really interesting in content but that you made this up as if it is a real thing I do

Its more like I made a statement and stood by it. Especially if the statement is my opinion. It's nice that you may have shared yours in a reply but I am under no obligation to change my mind or opinion on any topic.

If you don't like it, please ignore it.

Also again I am truly loss on what part of any post in any thread made by me was sarcasm. I'm pretty certain if I do say something sarcastic it's rather obvious.

If you really believed I did this in multiple threads you should've stopped reading my posts years ago. I feel like the majority of NT would've also done the same or at least they would've started calling me that one sarcastic poster that's always posting something sarcastic.

This narrative you've created about me is bonkers and an incredibly weak ad hominem attack but it changes nothing.

Like I said a hit dog will holler. You tap dancing ****** still tap dancing. I can only surmise this concoction of a post is only more of that.

Yeah, proving my point, you are not here to have a good-faith discussion

This is usually always obvious from the onset. It just took a while until we got to the part where somebody comes in and completely dismantles their argument.

Hope Meth doesn't waste his time.

 

[paulwest1985]

Nothing about that post you quoted was sarcasm.

At all. Got no clue what you're reaching for.

What part of the post do you think is sarcasm?

Is sarcasm the right choice of word you meant to use? I legit don't get this.

I also missed when I was known for my sarcasm on NT Especially if its infamous. Can anyone else fill me in on that?

This is interesting but false. Well not really interesting in content but that you made this up as if it is a real thing I do

Its more like I made a statement and stood by it. Especially if the statement is my opinion. It's nice that you may have shared yours in a reply but I am under no obligation to change my mind or opinion on any topic.

If you don't like it, please ignore it.

Also again I am truly loss on what part of any post in any thread made by me was sarcasm. I'm pretty certain if I do say something sarcastic it's rather obvious.

If you really believed I did this in multiple threads you should've stopped reading my posts years ago. I feel like the majority of NT would've also done the same or at least they would've started calling me that one sarcastic poster that's always posting something sarcastic.

This narrative you've created about me is bonkers and an incredibly weak ad hominem attack but it changes nothing.

Like I said a hit dog will holler. You tap dancing ****** still tap dancing. I can only surmise this concoction of a post is only more of that.


This is usually always obvious from the onset. It just took a while until we got to the part where somebody comes in and completely dismantles their argument.

Hope Meth doesn't waste his time.

Thank you for staying on brand.

 

[Comparison Ford]

Hey paulwest1985 you never answered my question!

If you don’t remember it I’ll repeat it: since you’re taking the moral high ground and preaching accountability, would you be willing to marry every woman you ever had sex with?

*edit: 10,000 posts!

 

[Master Zik]

Thank you for staying on brand.

So when questioned you back down and don't even address any of your lies.

Okay. I never expect much from you.

Hopefully you'll grasp and be able to actually identify actual sarcasm some day.

 

[paulwest1985]

Hey paulwest1985 you never answered my question!

If you don’t remember it I’ll repeat it: since you’re taking the moral high ground and preaching accountability, would you be willing to marry every woman you ever had sex with?

No. Know why? Because I don't have any kids with them .

 

[Comparison Ford]

No. Know why? Because I don't have any kids with them .

But according to you pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility when you have sex with someone, which is true.

So with that notion reinforced, do you revise your stance?

 

[paulwest1985]

But according to you pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility when you have sex with someone, which is true.

So with that notion reinforced, do you revise your stance?

I knew the risks when I engaged. Pregnancy is always a possibility. The only 3 women I've ever been intimate with I was in a committed relationship with each of them. Should a child have been produced from that coupling I would have stepped up and done the right thing by marrying the child's mother. But that didn't pan out. My initial stance still remains.

 

[Comparison Ford]

I knew the risks when I engaged. Pregnancy is always a possibility. The only 3 women I've ever been intimate with I was in a committed relationship with each of them. Should a child have been produced from that coupling I would have stepped up and done the right thing by marrying the child's mother. But that didn't pan out. My initial stance still remains.

Damb you get no *****.

I guess your stance makes sense given the context, but I’m still sorry to hear that.

 

[paulwest1985]

Damb you get no *****.

I guess your stance makes sense given the context, but I’m still sorry to hear that.

Sorry for what? Some of us not out here living reckless.

 

[WASHED KING]

P Present paulwest1985 How does this image make you guys feel?

 

[Master Zik]

 

[paulwest1985]

P Present paulwest1985 How does this image make you guys feel?

I don't feel any sort of way about this image. You have to ask the single mothers in that position how they feel. Or just pick a random Kevin Samuel's video. Lots of women that fit that description on there.

 

[fluid hips]

That's actually not true...it was a choice.

The destruction of the black family is on us and only us...again, accountability.

Black people have more opportunities now than ever before.

Public Housing? Racist Housing Laws? Word?

The numbers don't lie...single parent households are worse today in 2022 (80%) than it was back then in the 1986 (60%).

Straight from the "horses" mouth:

"I wouldn't want no man holding me down."

"Male figures are not substantially important in the family."

The first 60 seconds says it all...lost values Fam.

Just the beginning of that was cringe.

She said she didn't have a father growing up and here she is as a single mother. What makes her think her child will not repeat that cycle

 

[fluid hips]

P Present paulwest1985 How does this image make you guys feel?

These drawings have always been corny to me.

Just pitting black people against each other

 

[Present]

P Present paulwest1985 How does this image make you guys feel?

Makes me feel like that high school should have had more funding and free Wi-Fi

 

[gry60]

"The point is that single parent households and broken homes are not the obstacle to black folks' progress."

Corrected my statement.

On the importance of economic resources

Why single-parent homes affect children differently

A postdoctoral scholar and incoming assistant professor, Christina Cross talks about rethinking the ideal family, the limits of demographic research, and policy alternatives for alleviating poverty in America.

news.harvard.edu

One way to think about this is that economic resources play an important role in parents’ ability to provide the material resources that children need to thrive. When children have two parents in the household who are able to pool resources, they are less likely to live in poverty. However, for minority children, and black and Hispanic children in particular, even when they live in a two-parent family they’re still two to three times more likely to be poor. This has a lot to do with the structural disadvantages that these groups face. I don’t mean to suggest that economic resources are the only things that matter for children’s success — parenting and family stability are also important. However, I do find that economic resources play a key role in determining children’s educational success.

Later in the article, the author of the study refers to the Healthy Marriage Initiative, which was introduced by the Bush administration with the intent to boost marriage rates in low income households.

The GOP’s Dead-End Marriage Program

The research is in on a high-priced Bush-era initiative to promote marriage to poor people. It’s time for a divorce.

www.motherjones.com

Motivations:

it was the baby of Wade Horn, a controversial figure who Bush installed at HHS as the head of the Administration for Children and Families and the administration’s official “marriage czar.”

Before joining the Bush administration, Horn, a conservative psychologist, had helmed the National Fatherhood Initiative, where he attacked what he called the “we hate marriage” elites and infuriated women’s groups by defending the Southern Baptist Convention’s proclamation that women should “submit” to their husbands’ “servant leadership.” Horn believed that federal poverty programs should be vehicles for marriage promotion, once proposing that the federal government exclude unmarried people from anti-poverty programs like Head Start and from public housing. Horn’s deputy was Chris Gersten (husband of former Bush Labor Secretary Linda Chavez), who implemented the program and who is a strong believer in the value of “relationship education” in combating the social scourge of the disintegrating traditional family.

“A middle class couple with $100,000 a year that’s having trouble in their marriage, they can go out and spend $200 or $300 or $400 to get some classes that help them,” he explains. “But a poor couple isn’t going to spend the rent money on relationship classes.”

Funding and implementation:

The marriage money was diverted from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (formerly known as welfare), and much of it went to religious groups that went to work trying to combat the divorce rate in their communities by sponsoring date nights and romance workshops. In some cities, the local grantees used their federal funds to recruit professional athletes to make public service announcements touting the benefits of marriage.

And results...

At a recent conference sponsored by the HHS Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, researchers looking at various aspects of the marriage initiative presented their findings. They had nothing but bad news.

Take the Building Healthy Families program, which targeted unmarried but romantically involved couples who were either new parents or expecting a baby. The program, tested in Baltimore and seven other cities, offered participants many weeks of marriage education classes that focused on improving their relationships with the hopes that this would also help their children. Three years later, researchers reported that the program had produced precisely zero impact on the quality of the couples’ relationships, rates of domestic violence, or the involvement of fathers with their children. In fact, couples in the eight pilot programs around the country actually broke up more frequently than those in a control group who didn’t get the relationship program. The program also prompted a drop in the involvement of fathers and the percentage who provided financial support.

In a few bright spots, married couples who participated in a government-funded relationship class reported being somewhat happier and having slightly warmer relationships with their partners. But the cost of this slight bump in happiness in the Supporting Healthy Marriage program was a whopping $7,000 to $11,500 per couple. Imagine how much happier the couples would have been if they’d just been handed with cash. Indeed, feeling flush might have helped them stay married. After all, the only social program ever to show documented success in impacting the marriage rates of poor people came in 1994, when the state of Minnesota accidentally reduced the divorce rate among poor black women by allowing them to keep some of their welfare benefits when they went to work rather than cutting them off. During the three-year experiment and for a few years afterward, the divorce rate for black women in the state fell 70 percent. The positive effects on kids also continued for several years.

On sex ed:
Study is old (2008 )

Study Finds that Comprehensive Sex Education Reduces Teen Pregnancy | ACLU

(From 2019)

Spending on abstinence-only education not tied to fewer teen births

U.S. government spending on abstinence-only education doesn't appear to reduce teen pregnancies and in some areas is having the opposite effect, a recent study suggests.

www.reuters.com

For the country as a whole, money spent on abstinence-only programs had no effect on adolescent birth rates, the researchers found. Similarly, there was no overall effect of sexuality education on adolescent births.

But when researchers looked at individual states, they found the effects varied by state ideology, with both kinds of programs having significant impacts in conservative states.

For every $1.00 per pupil increase in funding for abstinence-only education, the teen birthrate rose by 0.30 per 1,000 in conservative states compared with moderate states, the researchers found.

In the same conservative states, however, funding of pregnancy-prevention education was linked with decreases in adolescent births. For every $1.00 per pupil increase in funding for pregnancy-prevention education, the teen birthrate went down by 2.42 per 1000 in conservative states compared with moderate states.

As WASHED KING implied earlier, education improves decision-making. Absent the right kind of education, the likelihood of teen pregnancy increases. Unmarried parents fare worse than divorced parents and are younger, so it seems logical to me to say that investing in comprehensive sex ed in school will reduce the amount of unmarried parents.

This investment is not a matter of personal responsibility.

Below is a study that examines child behavioral, health, and cognitive outcomes in different family arrangements.

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing

Jane Waldfogel, Terry-Ann Craigie, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn review recent studies that use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) to examine why children who grow up in single-mother and cohabiting families fare worse than children ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It does reaffirm that the likelihood of success is the greatest for stable, two-parent families, but it also says this:

Analysts have investigated five key pathways through which family structure might influence child well-being: parental resources, parental mental health, parental relationship quality, parenting quality, and father involvement. It is also important to consider the role of the selection of different types of men and women into different family types, as well as family stability. But analysts remain uncertain how each of these elements shapes children's outcomes.

In addition to providing an overview of findings from other studies using FFCWS, Waldfogel, Craigie, and Brooks-Gunn report their own estimates of the effect of a consistently defined set of family structure and stability categories on cognitive, behavioral, and health outcomes of children in the FFCWS study at age five. The authors find that the links between fragile families and child outcomes are not uniform. Family instability, for example, seems to matter more than family structure for cognitive and health outcomes, whereas growing up with a single mother (whether that family structure is stable or unstable over time) seems to matter more than instability for behavior problems. Overall, their results are consistent with other research findings that children raised by stable single or cohabiting parents are at less risk than those raised by unstable single or cohabiting parents.

The study defines stability as:

Family stability refers to whether children grow up with the same parent(s) that were present at their birth.

"family" here could refer to:
- a married household,
- a cohabiting household,
- a single parent household.

The study also addresses different studies examining the transition from one family structure to another one:

Single-parent and cohabiting-couple families are both more susceptible to family instability than are traditional married-couple families. Studies have shown that family structure at birth is highly predictive of family instability, affirming that cohabiting couples experience the most instability, followed by single-parent families, and then traditional two-parent families.25 However, it remains challenging to determine the importance of family stability relative to family structure. As we discuss below, one recent study found that family stability trumps family structure as it pertains to early cognitive development even after controlling for economic and parental resources.26 It has been shown that children living in stable single-parent families (that is, families that were headed by a single parent throughout childhood) do better than those living in unstable two-parent families (that is, families that had two parents present initially but then experienced a change in family structure).27 Another study finds that children living in stable cohabiting homes (that is, families where two parents cohabit throughout the child's life) do just as well as children living with cohabiting parents who eventually marry.28 But other research challenges the conclusion that it is family stability that is crucial for child well-being. One study, for instance, found that children who experience two or more family transitions do not have worse behavioral problems or cognitive test scores than children who experience only one or no family transitions. The same study found that children living in stable single-parent homes had the worst behavioral and cognitive outcomes.

It then concludes the following:

To the extent that children in fragile families do have poorer outcomes than children born into and growing up in more stable two-parent married-couple families, what are the policy implications? In principle, the findings summarized here point to three routes by which outcomes for children might be improved. The first is to reduce the share of children growing up in fragile families (for example, through policies that reduce the rate of unwed births or that promote family stability among unwed parents). The second is to address the mediating factors that place such children at risk (for example, through policies that boost resources in single-parent homes or that foster father involvement in fragile families). The third is to address directly the risks these children face (for example, through high-quality early childhood education policies or home-visiting policies).

Marriage isn't the solution you think it is because a single mother getting married just to give their child(ren) a family comes with the risk of negatively affecting the stability of her existing family structure. In addition, a revolving door of father figures is likely to be more damaging to the child well-being than having a single parent throughout their childhood.

It is a much better approach to promote policies that reduce births in unstable family arrangements, and for those who are already parents, provide the kind of help that will increase the stability of their households, whether they raise their children alone or with someone else. That's how you guarantee better outcomes for black children.

 

[WASHED KING]

Corrected my statement.

On the importance of economic resources

Why single-parent homes affect children differently

A postdoctoral scholar and incoming assistant professor, Christina Cross talks about rethinking the ideal family, the limits of demographic research, and policy alternatives for alleviating poverty in America.

news.harvard.edu

Later in the article, the author of the study refers to the Healthy Marriage Initiative, which was introduced by the Bush administration with the intent to boost marriage rates in low income households.

The GOP’s Dead-End Marriage Program

The research is in on a high-priced Bush-era initiative to promote marriage to poor people. It’s time for a divorce.

www.motherjones.com

Motivations:


Funding and implementation:

And results...


On sex ed:
Study is old (2008 )

Study Finds that Comprehensive Sex Education Reduces Teen Pregnancy | ACLU

(From 2019)

Spending on abstinence-only education not tied to fewer teen births

U.S. government spending on abstinence-only education doesn't appear to reduce teen pregnancies and in some areas is having the opposite effect, a recent study suggests.

www.reuters.com

As WASHED KING implied earlier, education improves decision-making. Absent the right kind of education, the likelihood of teen pregnancy increases. Unmarried parents fare worse than divorced parents and are younger, so it seems logical to me to say that investing in comprehensive sex ed in school will reduce the amount of unmarried parents.

This investment is not a matter of personal responsibility.

Below is a study that examines child behavioral, health, and cognitive outcomes in different family arrangements.

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing

Jane Waldfogel, Terry-Ann Craigie, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn review recent studies that use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) to examine why children who grow up in single-mother and cohabiting families fare worse than children ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It does reaffirm that the likelihood of success is the greatest for stable, two-parent families, but it also says this:



The study defines stability as:



"family" here could refer to:
- a married household,
- a cohabiting household,
- a single parent household.

The study also addresses different studies examining the transition from one family structure to another one:



It then concludes the following:


Marriage isn't the solution you think it is because a single mother getting married just to give their child(ren) a family comes with the risk of negatively affecting the stability of her existing family structure. In addition, a revolving door of father figures is likely to be more damaging to the child well-being than having a single parent throughout their childhood.

It is a much better approach to promote policies that reduce births in unstable family arrangements, and for those who are already parents, provide the kind of help that will increase the stability of their households, whether they raise their children alone or with someone else. That's how you guarantee better outcomes for black children.

This…I was going to type it all out but I didn’t think they were smart enough to understand it tbh.

 

[Present]

Ask some folks what time it is and they start telling you how to build a watch.

What's the solution to broken homes / single parent households in the Black Community?

Option A:

Marriage

Option B:

Divorce

Option C:

Never Married

Option D:

Absence

We out here arguing the merits 2nd and 3rd place?

Hate to see it.

Yes - divorce / co-parenting can work, Yes single parenting can work, Yes - being absent can work.

Just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should do it.

We talking about the next generation - the ones we still have a chance to save from making the same mistakes we did.

How we gonna break the cycle / correct the downward spiral if we keep making the same decisions?

We actually advocating for single parent households over marriage?

This is crazy!

 

[Present]

"Marriage isn't the solution you think it is because a single mother getting married" just to give their child(ren) a family comes with the risk of negatively affecting the stability of her existing family structure. In addition, a revolving door of father figures is likely to be more damaging to the child well-being than having a single parent throughout their childhood."

 

[RyGuy45]

Close to finishing up the doc. Kinda went in like most, “what more needs to be said?” But it reminds me a bit of the ESPN OJ doc… a deep dive was wild - hearing peoples’ words, and not lawyer or media talk was also appreciated.

My man just dropping two pill routine into drinks all over the country for upwards of 40-50 years, town after town. Never changed his method. Never swerved.

 

[RustyShackleford]

So am I following right?

Some of the dudes in here complaining about low marriages rates for black people, are black and unmarried

Oh well, that's interesting

 

[gry60]

"Marriage isn't the solution you think it is because a single mother getting married" just to give their child(ren) a family comes with the risk of negatively affecting the stability of her existing family structure. In addition, a revolving door of father figures is likely to be more damaging to the child well-being than having a single parent throughout their childhood."

Quoting out of context - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

 

[Present]

Even birds are smart enough to find a decent mate and build their nests BEFORE laying eggs.

 

[Mark Antony]

So I'm I following right?

Some of the dudes in here complaining about low marriages rates for black people, are black and unmarried

Oh well, that's interesting

I see a non-black in here repping this stuff and having a good ol time it seems.

 

[gry60]

This…I was going to type it all out but I didn’t think they were smart enough to understand it tbh.

That's not a lack of intelligence; it's an inability to admit they haven't considered information that may invalidate their position. Ego is antithetical to learning.

It's literally spelled out up there: programs to promote/strengthen marriage among low income people (in which black folks are predominantly represented) resulted in worse marriage outcomes. On the other hand, letting women keep access to some financial benefits after getting married reduced divorces by 70%.

Even birds are smart enough to find a decent mate and build their nests BEFORE laying eggs.

Good thing we're talking about humans, not birds.

That's also a poor analogy because most animals mate for a season, and it is pretty common for the offspring to be raised by a single mother.