Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs? (view source)

Revision as of 23:26, February 8, 2012

7,126 bytes added ,  23:26, February 8, 2012
→‎UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs
Line 136: Line 136:     
User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK?  As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire.  It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA.  In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically.  So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)
 
User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK?  As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire.  It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA.  In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically.  So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)
 +
::RedGoliath, who said that I/we don't live in the UK?  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
 +
Rafael, I did think of that. Although having the mindset of working hard helps a "underdog" become a bigger dog, I also think a society not having unnecessary barriers in the way helps too which Gladwell does talk about in his book. I also know that England has a history of social stratification compared to other countries. Here is what a Christian site says about England: “In the 1800s England had one hundred sixty crimes punishable by hanging, including ones as trivial as stealing a loaf of bread.” “I thought of this when I was reading in the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the lengthy prison sentences that Soviet children received for stealing when they were hungry.”[http://bible.org/seriespage/lamp-loaves-and-loudmouth-leviticus-24] The Bible has restitution for stealing.
 +
 +
Also, there is no doubt that atheists are more likely historically to promote social Darwinism and England was at the forefront of social Darwinism.
 +
 +
Since people tend to be their own worst enemies, I do think an underdog's biggest asset is not having a bad mindset and having good habits. In the Western World, although there are certainly young ladies who have husband's cheat on them, there are also plenty who have sex before marriage and wind up being single mothers with unruly kids. I also think feminism and selfish males increase divorce rates which causes single motherhood.
 +
 +
Here are some relevant statistics about the above as far as the United States:
 +
 +
In terms of household structure, households headed by women are far more likely to be poor than
 +
other types of households. There are 4.1 million female-headed families in poverty and 2.9
 +
million married-couple families in poverty; in total over 14.4 million households are headed by
 +
women.73 Half of all women will potentially experience single motherhood at some point in
 +
their lifetimes; 80 percent of black women and 45 percent of white women will become family
 +
heads at some time during their childbearing years.74 In 2000, the distribution of female-headed
 +
household types with children was as follows: 12 percent were headed by a woman with a
 +
cohabitating male partner, 14.3 percent were headed by a grandmother, and 73.8 percent by a
 +
single mother. A larger share of the households headed by a grandmother is black.75
 +
Poverty rates in female-headed households are typically 3 to 4 times as high as those for the
 +
overall population.76 Individuals in households that become headed by a female are extremely
 +
likely to enter into poverty:
 +
 +
• When a two-adult household becomes a female-headed household, 20.1 percent entered
 +
poverty.77
 +
• The transition to a female-headed family accounts for 59 percent of the poverty
 +
beginnings for female heads with children: 38 percent of these poverty spell
 +
beginnings result from a marital breakup and 21 percent result from what is most likely
 +
unmarried motherhood.78
 +
• Persons in households that have been female-headed for 2 or more years are more likely
 +
enter poverty than persons in two-adult and single male-headed households.79
 +
• More than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
 +
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
 +
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
 +
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
 +
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
 +
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
 +
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
 +
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
 +
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
 +
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
 +
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
 +
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
 +
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
 +
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
 +
13
 +
Female-headed households  than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
 +
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
 +
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
 +
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
 +
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
 +
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
 +
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
 +
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
 +
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
 +
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
 +
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
 +
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
 +
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
 +
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
 +
13
 +
Female-headed households’ status is closely tied to poverty because single parent families
 +
typically have just one potential earner and are less likely than married parents to have a fulltime
 +
worker. When there is only one adult earner in the household, fewer hours are worked and
 +
fewer hours are available to be worked due to care giving responsibilities. Though employment
 +
rates are high for single women with children (almost 80% work)86, mothers who never
 +
marry are 70 percent less likely to be working full time compared to women who have only
 +
marital births.87 If there is not another earner in the household, grandmother-headed households
 +
with children have extremely high odds of experiencing poverty, significantly higher (40%) than
 +
those headed by a single mother.88[http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whatwedo/advocacy/reports/causes-of-poverty.pdf]
 +
 +
Martin Seligman wrote about "learned helplessness" and I do think that liberal's constant promotion of victimhood promotes "learned helpflessness" as well as central government controlled social programs. After all is said and done, I think "America's war on poverty" has been a colossal failure as it rewards bad habits and causes a dependent mindset. I think when families and local communities were in charge of charity, there was more accountability and less fostering of a dependency and victimhood mindset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
    
== Atheists and surprises ==
 
== Atheists and surprises ==
Conservative
Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,925

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/959832"

Navigation menu