This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » World » Catholics shouldn't be allowed to adopt children (Page 13)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 36 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  34  35  36   
Author Topic: Catholics shouldn't be allowed to adopt children
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Erm, go on then.
Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Croute au fromage et oeuf au plat
Member
Member # 19

 - posted      Profile for Croute au fromage et oeuf au plat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What I mean is that it seems to be more of a new reading of data and that scientist built a new theory upon it but it does not seem to have gathered a consensus around it?
Posts: 16714 | From: Outskirts of Manchester | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gas Filled Dolphin Carcass
Member
Member # 730

 - posted      Profile for Gas Filled Dolphin Carcass     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote: Is this what helped you to grow up into a mealy mouthed, intolerant, mentally ill bigot?

...said the very tolerant Carcass when confronted with an opinion which differed from his own.

I'm intolerant of nasty minded, stupid, racist, homophobic, reactionary, right wing thunder cunts?

Fucking sue me.

Rather than sniping from the sidelines. Why don't you get off the fence and tell us whether you feel that gay couples should be prevented from adopting or not.

Posts: 8490 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pants
Member
Member # 404

 - posted      Profile for Pants     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Chances are you won't see Paul again on this thread. He'll pop on a completely different thread in a couple of days, being happy-go-lucky and spouting more unsubstantiated prejudice"

welcome to the 'Carphone Warehouse sponsorship' club, Pants.

Funny you should mention the Carphone Warehouse sponsorship of Big Brother, Major. I was just thinking to myself, I wouldn't be surprised if they suspended it or something - over this big race row.
Posts: 3266 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That's crazy talk.
Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G-Man
Member
Member # 104

 - posted      Profile for G-Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Carcass, the reference to mental illness in a swipe at Paul S was well out of order, and had Paul overstepped the line in such a way, he'd have been crucified, and rightly so. I think you should retract that. The rest of the swipe was fair comment.

SSS, that is interesting stuff indeed, and I will want to remember it in future discussions on the subject. These studies reveal dimensions to a complex and intrinsically unresolvable debate. But it's not hard science, and shouldn't be treated as if it were. As any credible sociologist would emphasise.

For example:

quote:
Apparently similar studies into criminality have found extremely similar results. Having a criminal biological parent makes you more likely to be a criminal, as does growing up in a crime ridden area. Whereas having a criminal adoptive parent has a negligible effect.
But the criminal adoptive parents surely influence dirfectly the social environment the kid grows up in: the school he or she goes to, the social contacts (e.g. the influential criminal family friend) etc.

I'd argue that values transmitted by parents also influence what kind of social environment a kid might embrace or reject — sometimes to the contrary of the transmitted values. I don't know how that is measurable though.

Posts: 22308 | From: one floor to another | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Croute au fromage et oeuf au plat
Member
Member # 19

 - posted      Profile for Croute au fromage et oeuf au plat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I had a big of a google last night. That book certainly had an impact and has been taken up by the Dawkins and Pinker of this world (possibly surprisingly since Harris is a failed academic with no qualification against her name - a number of her critiques, particularly those in the field of child psychology accuse her of equally misinterprating the data...). However it remains controversial and it's not the gospel truth so the jury is still out about what influence parents have on their kids.

As you can imagine it has also created a fair bit of political debate...

Posts: 16714 | From: Outskirts of Manchester | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smallweed
Member
Member # 1692

 - posted      Profile for smallweed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There's a discussion on parentage in that Freakonimcs book as well - like the rest of the book it's rather glib and sketchy but not without interest.

His (very broad) conclusion was that parentage did have a significant impact but often not in the ways you'd expect - the impact of parental behaviour on future prospects of their kids was generally affected merely by the type of people the parents were rather than by any active steps the parents took (eg making a point of reading to your kids every night didn't have any effect but the mere fact of parents being readers and having books in the house did, and other stuff like that).

Posts: 1606 | From: John McGlynn's bouncy army | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TonTon
Member
Member # 41

 - posted      Profile for TonTon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Toro - I seem to remember that you've suggested this before, that a more tolerant society is of no benefit to society in general. I don't understand why you make that argument, can you explain it to me?
Posts: 9771 | From: London. Yes, actual London, with a real London postcode and everything. | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
SSS, that is interesting stuff indeed, and I will want to remember it in future discussions on the subject. These studies reveal dimensions to a complex and intrinsically unresolvable debate. But it's not hard science, and shouldn't be treated as if it were. As any credible sociologist would emphasise.
Whoa, hold up a minute. It's jumping the gun a bit to denounce the scientific credentials of this stuff based on my sketchy précis of it. As far as I understand it, hard science is exactly what it is; dry analysis of controlled data.

Also, speaking as someone who studied sociology a bit, and thinks it's a worthwhile pursuit, even I have to say that dismissing this kind of thing as not being hard science, and tagging on "as any reputable sociologist will tell you" is a dubious position. Sociology is a long way away from being hard science, or even knowing what hard science is.

quote:
But the criminal adoptive parents surely influence dirfectly the social environment the kid grows up in: the school he or she goes to, the social contacts (e.g. the influential criminal family friend) etc.
Well, the point is that these other factors - school, family friends, peers, etc - appear to be more influential than the parenting, to a degree that they are, in the cases studied so far, about level with the genetic influence.

It's hard to draw too many conclusions about this right now, and there's plainly more work to be done, but one theory is that we're genetically predisposed to learn how to become social beings outside the family unit, and resist social programming from within it. Which, I think, has a lot to commend it as a theory, but is, of course, just a theory at this stage.

Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wyatt Earp
Member
Member # 108

 - posted      Profile for Wyatt Earp     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think Rich Harris' work, whether or not it turns out to be right, has dramatically shifted the burden of proof. Anyone seeking to establish a lasting parental influence on personality cannot, any longer, get away with failing to factor out the influence of heredity and the non-shared environment. That's a real injection of rigour into the debate.

Or so you'd think. But as SSS points out, that rigour is entirely absent from the site WOM links to. Divorce is known to be linked to a number of personality traits with very high heritability, such as antisociality, neurosis and a tendency to addiction. So we'd expect, on those grounds alone, the children of divorced parents to have a tendency to divorce. If you factor all that out, does an effect remain? WOM's site is silent.

Posts: 19927 | From: the Cryptic Cabal | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G-Man
Member
Member # 104

 - posted      Profile for G-Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Which, I think, has a lot to commend it as a theory, but is, of course, just a theory at this stage.
I didn't denounce the theory or study. I find it interesting, and indeed commendable. But while the methodology in socological research can be scientific, the results inevitably cannot be hard science because there are too many variables.

That's why I sound the caution that no position in sociology should ever be taken absolutely. A good study revealing new findings can, as WE says, inject a new impetus into a debate and lead to new positions.

I think that's the maddening beauty of the social sciences: there rarely are conclusive answers, so the discourse remains fluid.

Posts: 22308 | From: one floor to another | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not so sure about this line of thinking. I'm not really convinced there's some mystical cut off point where the number of variables involved in a thing means we can't have hard science around it.
Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oadlad
Member
Member # 1613

 - posted      Profile for Oadlad     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There were millions of one parent kids in the war, I was one and was introduced to my dad when I was a few weeks short of my eighth birthday.
There isn't a formula for parenting as it is all down to being caring in the end.

Posts: 157 | From: Leicester UK | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Indeed.
Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 36 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  34  35  36   

   Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there