Same reason I don't think a lot of things. There's almost 7 billion people in the world.
Think about it.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Paul Gray form Slipknot found dead
- Thread starter anyonefortennis
- Start date
Same reason I don't think a lot of things. There's almost 7 billion people in the world.
Think about it.
I'm thinking about it. Does not make any sense whatsoever.
But hey, when I was 22 I thought I was smart too.
Unfortunately I dont think its that easy. Fact is if you've ever succumbed to peer pressure or curiosity your just as viable to have fallen into the same traps as Paul.
When your living and working in a music industry and are quite famous you are most likely going to be surrounded by drugs. Especially if your on the road away from home a lot of the time....It would take a much of a stronger character to say no.
When your living and working in a music industry and are quite famous you are most likely going to be surrounded by drugs. Especially if your on the road away from home a lot of the time....It would take a much of a stronger character to say no.
I don't feel that's a legitimate excuse to dying of an overdose and leaving your kid fatherless.
I'll explain myself then. Some people have two parents and turn out fine. Some people have two parents and are screwed up. Some people have one parent and turn out fine. Some people have one parent and are screwed up. So what is the formula?
Wait a sec, there are almost 7 billion people in the world.
There is no formula.
There are way too many people in the world to try and figure one out.
You might say "but studies have shown..."
I've never been interviewed and asked how many parents I had and if I was screwed up, have you?
And in response to your snide remark about being smart, chances are I have an extreme advantage over you in that department.
Sometimes kids are better off with a single parent household. If the two parents are constantly fighting, bitter, sarcastic, etc with each other that's going to usually make for a maladjusted child because of the lack of harmony within the household.
Do note that I said "sometimes" on the norm a nuclear family is better for the child. Of course there are also exceptions to the one I just used too, some kids turn out well adjusted despite all the turmoil.
Yes, anecdotal evidence would clearly outweigh any legitimate, peer-reviewed studies. *facepalm*
My point is that once you understand how many 7 billion is, you realize that there's no such thing as a legitimate study.
It's literally impossible to have a large enough sample to come to any concrete conclusion on this subject.
Given that no absolute answer has been reached by the people who's entire field of study is just this, it must not be important.
And that is why I don't think it's important (important meaning relevant) for an individual to be raised by two parents.
All it tells me is you haven't read or conducted many studies.
So your argument is that there are too many people to get a large enough sample size (which is contradictory in itself), and thus it is impossible to get definitive answers, but it must not be important because there are no definitive answers. It isn't important because there are too many people?
Find a single study or research done that suggests that a single-parent household is beneficial to a dual-parent household. I guarantee, you won't find any. You will, however, find numerous papers on the psychological benefits of the stability of a full family, and the numerous medical/psychiatric conditions that list a single-parent family/broken home as a indicator for increased risk.
Saying that something isn't true in every case does NOT mean that it is not true in the general case. That's bad logic, and bad statistics, if you want to use that argument. Of course it's better not to have a family where the two parents fight or do drugs, just like it's better not to have a single parent family with a latchkey kid. Lots of people grow up in non-ideal conditions; in fact, most grow up in non-ideal. But that doesn't mean there isn't an idealized case for a kid.
And btw, you don't need insane sample sizes just because the human race is 7 billion. If you did, nothing would ever get approved anywhere in the medical field. Papers don't look for "concrete conclusions"- that's never the aim. They look for figures that are significantly suggestive of one way or the other- which is to say "this is the most likely scenario", which has to be statistically true. Nothing succeeds in absolutes in science (well, few things anyway).
But again, I'd bet my house you've never conducted or, likely, read many serious papers. That's perfectly fine. But it does mean you don't entirely understand what you're saying.
So your argument is that there are too many people to get a large enough sample size (which is contradictory in itself), and thus it is impossible to get definitive answers, but it must not be important because there are no definitive answers. It isn't important because there are too many people?
Find a single study or research done that suggests that a single-parent household is beneficial to a dual-parent household. I guarantee, you won't find any. You will, however, find numerous papers on the psychological benefits of the stability of a full family, and the numerous medical/psychiatric conditions that list a single-parent family/broken home as a indicator for increased risk.
Saying that something isn't true in every case does NOT mean that it is not true in the general case. That's bad logic, and bad statistics, if you want to use that argument. Of course it's better not to have a family where the two parents fight or do drugs, just like it's better not to have a single parent family with a latchkey kid. Lots of people grow up in non-ideal conditions; in fact, most grow up in non-ideal. But that doesn't mean there isn't an idealized case for a kid.
And btw, you don't need insane sample sizes just because the human race is 7 billion. If you did, nothing would ever get approved anywhere in the medical field. Papers don't look for "concrete conclusions"- that's never the aim. They look for figures that are significantly suggestive of one way or the other- which is to say "this is the most likely scenario", which has to be statistically true. Nothing succeeds in absolutes in science (well, few things anyway).
But again, I'd bet my house you've never conducted or, likely, read many serious papers. That's perfectly fine. But it does mean you don't entirely understand what you're saying.
No, sorry! Directed at mammaryvest.
But I was pointing out that your exception (the "bad two parent family") is one worth noting, including other similar variants, but used it as an example to state that exceptions don't negate the rule, so to speak. Of course not every two parent family will be perfect, but on the whole they are better for the social and psychological development of a child.
But I was pointing out that your exception (the "bad two parent family") is one worth noting, including other similar variants, but used it as an example to state that exceptions don't negate the rule, so to speak. Of course not every two parent family will be perfect, but on the whole they are better for the social and psychological development of a child.
I guess it comes down to how easily convinced you are. I for one, am not convinced as there are far too many X factors involved. People who think they can understand how the world works through statistics are sorely mistaken. I also think that if you look hard enough, you can find a study that supports whatever you want.
- Jun 25, 2006
- 3,226
- 341
- Disclosures
- Owner, Pike Amplification & 3Leaf Audio
So find one that supports what you are talking about. I bet you can't find that one.
Again, I don't think it has anything to do with "how easily convinced" you are- unless you know something the entire educated scientific and non-scientific field doesn't. I don't think you've done much statistics based on your responses, because I think you assume it means something other than what it does. Nobody is "explaining the world through statistics".
But vague uninformed dismissive statements are fine, if you want to use them.
I'm just not sure why it is important to prove that single parent families might be better, or that Paul's kid is going to be somehow better off.
Why doesn't this thread get closed down for being off-topic?
It's a shame that Paul Gray died young.
It's a shame that a bunch of you have become holier than thou about drugs and alcohol while talking ill of the dead. Drugs are fantastic when your on them and addicts are nightmares to live with. Some people strive to be sober after years of drug use and some people die on the way. It's sad but I'm sure Paul Gray's family will get on just fine after mourning.
I think this thread has become quite sick.
It's a shame that Paul Gray died young.
It's a shame that a bunch of you have become holier than thou about drugs and alcohol while talking ill of the dead. Drugs are fantastic when your on them and addicts are nightmares to live with. Some people strive to be sober after years of drug use and some people die on the way. It's sad but I'm sure Paul Gray's family will get on just fine after mourning.
I think this thread has become quite sick.
I never said it was better. I'm just saying there is literally no reason in the whole world that this kid won't turn out fine.
Is there a correct way to raise a human being? If you don't think so, than I'm right. If you DO think so you're a big dumb-dumb head.
The logic of your argument is both nuanced and infallible.
Yes I'm sure the missing influence of his father will not have any effect on him. That's usually how it turns out.
Yes I'm sure the missing influence of his father will not have any effect on him. That's usually how it turns out.
