What do you think of this bitch?
Context: BOOKFACE /mattandmeshel/videos/vb.719839498113250/944107429019788
>>73874100
who is this arab slut
>>73874279
Some entitled 21 yo law student who decided that she wasn't going to vote for someone in a competition on a local radio show simply because she didn't agree with a same-sex lifestyle. The lady who was going to win $10k to have IVF so that her and her partner could have a baby didnt get the money because this little backward hoe decided that she didnt like her because she is a lesbian.
>>73874369
Sound like a good thing Austria desu
>>73874369
All IVF is degenerate
Giving it to Lesbians especially so
It was illegal not long ago, still is jn some states, and should be illegal in all
Based Arab
>>73875135
get out of here Amerifag, doesn't concern you. Australia is actually lightyears ahead of America, you a guys are heading back towards the middle ages with el Presidente Trump.
>>73875297
thanks Tanya, get off 4chan plz
Every child deserves a father in their life.
To give IVF to a lesbian is to deliberately create life where the child will have no father.
FUCK OFF DYKES
>>73875363
lol i bet your drunkard bogan dad taught you that whilst getting you to blow into the interlock so he can go pick up his centrelink monies
>>73874369
So what's wrong? I wouldn't want anyone being raised by two lesbians.
Based Arab.
>>73875342
Not an argument
Get off /pol/ you dyke loving baby killing degenerate
>>>>/lgbt/
>>73875363
also by that logic we should take kids away from single mothers.. do you even have a brain dumbass?
>>73875411
yes muslimfag, go duck some 8yo like muhhamad. your opinion bears no weight in australia
what sicko would let dykes have a baby smdh
>>73875490
i didnt realise they had internet in housing commissions.
>>73875576
anyone with even a shred of education perhaps.a loving caring family is what matters not whether theres 1 penis and 1 vagina around. lol
>>73875543
>philippines
>muslim
Are you an abo? Where did you steal that internet?
>>73875409
Go back to Newtown you degenerate
Let your dyke m8s raise their bastard children in fatherless homes without IVF or rights
>>73875628
man fkn wrekt
looks like betty the bulldyke will be butthurt tonight.
>>73875306
>Australia is actually lightyears ahead of America
>America has gay marriage
>Australia does not
kek
>>73875580
Please m8 I'm typing in my Wentworth mansion with harbour views
Back to your Newtown terrace you go
>>73875519
We should.
Single mothers raise criminals at a significantly higher rate than single fathers or couples.
>>73875628
take that plastic bag off your face, wipe the paint off and maybe get an education, useless bogan cunt
>>73875626
I think upon close inspection you will find that he is a Greens voter from Cucktoria
>>73875703
in lightyears the gay cancer won't exist, so in a way australia is ahead
>>73875519
>also by that logic we should take kids away from single mothers
Society would objectively be far more functional
There is literally no greater burden on the state than single mothers
>>73875626
oh sorry, go diddle some boys you catholic scum
>>73874369
Good for her she sounds pretty based
>>73875786
some stats that support this would be nice, otherwise its just useless spew
>>73875753
1/2
i am from cucktoria, but i dont vote.
Actually, upon back reading, this is some great bait.
Bravo Australia.
>>73875711
perfect evidence that you are just a bogan in a housing commission unit in bumfuck suburb. people who live elsewhere tend to not brag about where they live.
>>73875937
here fishy fishy :D
>>73874100
Not my concern, seems like needless drama and useless virtue signalling as far as I am concerned.
Has nothing to do with politics or with the upcoming election, if you want to talk about that then I will be interested, otherwise enjoy needless drama.
>>73875832
as based as your average amerifag, no education, brainwashed by religion, entitled. all that's missing is "MAH GUNS!"
>>73874369
sounds based
>>73875297
>All IVF is degenerate
fucking this
>>73875409
>Hurr durr you're not a leftist brainwashed faggot so you must be inbred
You guys seriously need some new brainwashing. You've been using the same stupid fucking retorts for like 20 years now.
>>73876023
since when is pol about politics lol? its about political correctness, this is a great topic for pol
>>73875847
Do your own fucking research you uneducated Mongoloid.
if you need me to actually prove this to you that simply shows how naive you are and that you're likely no older than 18. Infact you even sound like I did at that age a few years ago so grow up and then we can have this discussion.
What I will tell you to research is to find the incidence of single-parenthood by country. What you will notice is that as the rate goes up, the shitter the country is. Tell me, why do you think that is?
>>73876077
hurr durr im a drunk bogan i dont understand evolution and i cannot apply critical thinking to anything. MAH OPINIONS ... enjoy being the end of your family tree moron
>>73876083
That is your opinion and while I disagree with it I will respect it.
As I said, useless virtue signalling and drama and has nothing to do with the upcoming election, if you want to talk about that then great, if not then really no interest.
From the comments to the video:
>Remember to put things in perspective,
>The Ten Grand Jury was a contest and all members of the jury were there to play the game. In the first Ten Grand Jury the winner lied through his teeth and took away the money.
>This time Tania's way of playing was, if I don't get the money, no one gets the money. She was playing the game.
Aside from this comment, most comments are things like:
>People should not judge others' behaviours.
But guess what? IT'S A FUCKING JURY! YOU ARE MEANT TO GIVE JUDGEMENTS ON WHO GETS WHAT.
What the fuck is the problem with this? If you think people should not be judged, just don't give credit to the show altogether.
>>73876119
burden of proof is on you bitch
>>73875896
Right, so you're under-age as I suspected AND you're Cucktorian.
I actually used to be alot like you before I got myself an education. I even used to think Sweden and Denmark were the best countries on the planet which I'm sure you do.
>>73875623
Why do faggots like you even come here? Stick to leddit big guy.
>>73876149
then why the fuck are you posting in here, get out fag.
>>73876172
lol loving the assumptions you make, where did you get your education? from your bogan mum and dad who think the asians/indians are terkin der jerbs?
>>73876165
Actually it isn't when we are discussing assumed knowledge.
You political ignorance is the equivalent of a creationist say "w-well prove evolution is real!"
I could, but I'm not going to indulge you.
>>73876189
why are fags like you here? go back to /b/
>>73876165
Are you ready to pretend to read things?
1) U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Living Arrangements of Children under 18 Years/1 and Marital Status of Parents by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin/2 and Selected Characteristics of the Child for all Children 2010.” Table C3. Internet Release Date November, 2010.
2) M. Anne Hill and June O’Neill, Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants (New York: City University of New York, Baruch College, 1990).
Robert Rector, “Married Fathers: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” June 16, 2010. Available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/married-fathers-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty. Accessed June 19, 2015.
3) Wendy D. Manning and Kathleen A. Lamb, “Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65, no. 4 (2003): 876-893.
4) Robert Rector, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation Special Report no. 117, September 5, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty.
5) Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14, no. 3 (2004): 369–397.
6) Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14, no. 3 (2004): 369-397.
7) Wright and Wright, “Family Life and Delinquency and Crime: A Policymaker’s Guide to the Literature.” See reference to Ann Goetting, “Patterns of Homicide Among Children,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 35, no. 1 (1989): 31-44.
8) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Information on Poverty and Income Statistics: A Summary of 2014 Current Population Survey Data,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (September 2014).
>>73875306
Speak for YOURSELF.
>Implying Trump is bad.
GTFO.
>>73876210
I can post whenever and wherever I like, you can selectively choose to ignore it if you want or you can respond.
Either or is fine, but I still state this is just useless virtue signalling and has nothing to do with the upcoming election.
>>73876165
9) Rolf Loeber, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Welmont Van Kammen, and David P. Farrington, “Initiation, Escalation, and Desistance in Juvenile Offending and their Correlates,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82, (1991): 36-82.
Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, no. 1 (2004): 58-81.
See also Wright and Wright, “Family Life and Delinquency and Crimes: A Policymaker’s Guide to the Literature,” for a comprehensive listing of the following researchers who year by year in the last decade report similar conclusions: H. B. Gibson (1969); Michael Rutter (1971); Karen Wilkinson (1980); R.J. Canter (1982); Joseph H. Rankin (1983); Ross L. Matsueda and Karen Heimer (1987); and Larry LeFlore (1988).
10) Analysis of the fifty states and the District of Columbia shows a correlation of .69 between juvenile violent crime arrest rates and the percentage of children residing in single-parent homes within the states or District. Using statewide figures for the states and the District of Columbia, Heritage staff used multiple regression analysis to estimate the effect of family structure on juvenile crime, holding constant the degree of urbanization. The juvenile violent crime arrest rate served as the dependent variable. Two independent variables were used in the regression: the percentage of children residing in single-parent families and the percentage of the population within the state or District residing within standard metropolitan areas. These data indicate that a 10 percent increase in single-parent variable leads to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime. Both the family structure variable and the urbanization variable were found to have a statistically significant effect on juvenile crime, with over a 99 percent level of significance.
>>73876254
oh but it is lol. you just use these shitty arguments because you have no evidence to support your own dumb arguments. its such a classic tactic, can't win an argument - change the argument!
>>73876165
11) Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, no. 1 (2004): 58-81.
12) National Center for Fathering “The Consequences of Fatherlessness,” (2015). Available at http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/. Accessed July 7, 2015).
Also see Patrick Fagan, “Rising Illegitimacy, America’s Social Catastrophe,” The Heritage Foundation (1994). Available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/06/rising-illegitimacy.
13) Robert Karen, Becoming Attached (New York: Time Warner Books, 1994), chapter 14
14) See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Study of The National Incidences of and Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect,” (1988): 5-29.
15) Genevieve Van Wyden, “Mother Abandonment & the Effects on the Child,” April 15, 2015. http://www.livestrong.com/article/159897-mother-abandonment-the-effects-on-the-child/. Accessed June 19, 2015.
16) Robert Karen, Becoming Attached (New York: Time Warner Books, 1994), chapter 14.
>>73876165
17) Boys whose fathers die, leaving their mothers widowed, typically do not have this emotional deficit. See Paul L. Adams, Judith R. Milner, and Nancy A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984).
There is a difference between death and abandonment. One condition is a fact of life to be accepted by everybody; the other is a grave moral condition to avoided if at all possible.
18) Rolf Loeber, “Development and Risk Factors of Juvenile Antisocial Behavior and Delinquency,” Clinical Psychology Review 10, (1990): 1-41.
19) Patricia Van Voorhis et al., “The Impact of Family Structure and Quality on Delinquency: A Comparative Assessment of Structural and Functional Factors,” Criminology 26, no. 2 (1988): 235-261.
20) Erin J. Lee, “The Attachment System Throughout the Life Course: Review and Criticisms of Attachment Theory,” Personality Research (December 2003). Available at http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/lee.html. Accessed July 7, 2015.
21) Elijah Anderson, “The Code of the Street,” Atlantic Monthly, May 1994. See also “Stage Two: Juvenile Delinquency,” infra.
22) Sheldon and Eleanor T. Gluceck, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950).
23) Anne Campbell, “Self-Reported Delinquency and Home Life: Evidence from a Sample of British Girls,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 16, no. 2 (1987). This is not to diminish the importance of the father’s affiliation with his children in other areas—for example, sexual identity, to name but one.
>>73876165
24) Ellis Pitt-Atkins and Alice Thomas, Loss of the Good Authority: The Cause of Delinquency (London: Viking, 1989).
“Father Presence,” National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse. Available at https://www.fatherhood.gov/for-programs/for-your-fathers/father-presence# Accessed July 7, 2015.
25) “Involved presence” means active participation by the father in supervising the child’s progress: at a minimum, by monitoring and correcting the child.
26) Albert Bandura and R.H. Walters, Adolescent Aggression (New York: Ronald Press, 1959).
I can show more, but we both know you won't even start the first one.
>>73876287
ehm.... USA....not Australia fuck off, why dont you give me some Chinese stats cause they would be so relevant also..
mfw you think studies from one country apply to another.
>>73876287
>>73876327
>>73876347
>>73876363
>>73876385
<3 love u nederlands
>>73876385
dude stop, its all irrelevant shit
>>73876338
>shitty arguments
Right. Then to actually show you what a moron you are I'll substantiate what I said with empirical evidence.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673603123240
>Findings
>Children with single parents showed increased risks of psychiatric disease, suicide or suicide attempt, injury, and addiction. After adjustment for confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status and parents' addiction or mental disease, children in single-parent households had increased risks compared with those in two-parent households for psychiatric disease in childhood (relative risk for girls 2·1 [95% CI 1·9–2·3] and boys 2·5 [2·3–2·8]), suicide attempt (girls 2·0 [1·9–2·2], boys 2·3 [2·1–2·6]), alcohol-related disease (girls 2·4 [2·2–2·7], boys 2·2 [2·0–2·4]), and narcotics-related disease (girls 3·2 [2·7–3·7], boys 4·0 [3·5–4·5]). Boys in single-parent families were more likely to develop psychiatric disease and narcotics-related disease than were girls, and they also had a raised risk of all-cause mortality.
>Conclusions
>Growing up in a single-parent family has disadvantages to the health of the child. Lack of household resources plays a major part in increased risks. However, even when a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances are included in multivariate models, children of single parents still have increased risks of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury.
So as you can see single parenthood is a societal cancer and for all the above reasons single parents and their dependants naturally become parasites on the state.
>>73876411
yes using stats from countries with different economic/social structures will have some bearing on what going on here... LMAO
lets get some studies from Antarctica
>>73876398
From what I can see he is providing statistics from a variety of first world nations which show a conclusive trend on how single mothers and lesbianic partners make for poor parents.
It would appear he is meeting the burden of proof that is being set out by showing a standard pattern appearing in first world nations in which Australia is a part of.
It appears your virtue signalling is not paying off unfortunately :/
It was an average bait thread at the very least.
>>73876459
>tries to argue that single mothers/gay parents in Australia = worse for kids
>uses Swedish study as example
fucking facepalm.
give me some African studies as well.
get out of here loser
>>73876398
>>73876418
>it's irrelevant because just because it's true in more than one place doesn't mean it's true here
>it's all from the USA
I told you you wouldn't read it.
Some of them directly mention other countries in the title.
But oh well, silly me for showing up with things countering your arguments eh?
Then again I'm just from a country that's had LBGTQABCDEFG+/-/% for 40 odd years, what the fuck would I know, right?
>>73876510
let me pull some papers out of my ass that are relevant to my discourse:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X15001209
boom, roasted!
>>73874369
based as fuck desu
>>73876557
mr neanderlands, i can find dozens of papers that have opposite findings, reality is way more complex than some scientific studies.
how about looking into orphaned kids are they better off than being with a single parent or gay parents? lel
>gofundme com / charlotteivf
>the lesbian started a go fund me page after not winning the money
anything to not have to work, isnt it?
>>73876637
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X15001209
>US Study
>Has made many claims that US studies do not apply to Australia
Sorry, your link doesn't count unfortunately by your own standards, would you like to try again?
>>73876707
>lol i can find dozens of things supporting me
>here's one with a pay wall
>space invaders 1 - mc donalds 0
>>73874369
Sounds pretty based to be honest
>>73876754
im just saying its easy to find shit that is actually irrelevant but seems relevant because it supports the argument you are trying to make. i proved it right there. you dismissed my papaer, just like i dismissed all yours, they are irrelevant to our country.
>mfw someone thinks all first world countries are the same
travel much cunt?
>>73876866
Thanks to globalization, all first world countries pretty much are exactly the same.
The only noticeable differences being language and currency.
t. A worldwide traveler who's also spent time in your neck of the woods.
>>73876707
>i can find dozens of papers that have opposite findings
>but i won't post a single one
>>73876718
haha thats true, im kind of thinking maybe the Tanya whore is in cahoots with the lesbo to get monies. they can prolly get way more than 10k from retarded kids who donate to anything that touches their heart strings.
>>73876979
LOL, she'll be right mate, you keep believing that. maybe you should get that downs syndrome checked out
>>73876866
>Assumes I dismissed the paper behind a paywall
I didn't dismiss it, you did with your own statement, I just applied your own burden of proof.
>All first world countries are the same
Essentially they are except for a few cultural differences, after all according to feminists and other progressives all white people are exactly the same. I am just making the same generalization they do.
>>73877095
>This doesn't sound like how I imagine the world
>Quick! Throw an insult!
So what are you planning on studying for your VCE in 3 years, anon?
I'm guessing sociology, largely because you found a book on it on the bus once.
>>73877000
hmmm, here's a meta analysis of 33 studies, enjoy:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract
>>73877120
you're just as much of a tard as the neanderthal guy.
>>73877198
>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract
Another US paywall study
Sorry doesn't meet the burden of proof you have set down, could you perhaps try again?
>>73877190
>i generalise everything and every country is the same....
Quick lets insult them precious
>>73877270
I probably am but in the end I am still using your burden of proof to disprove your own theory, when you can actually apply critical thinking come back and try again.
Also if you could talk about the upcoming election that would be swell!
>>73876038
my twin cousins are IVF and they spent their childhood in 90s britian absolutely tame asf, their dad was in the airforce working on F-111Cs and probs lost his fertility climbing into those fuel tanks
>>73877320
pay some monies then abo and read it, why do you expect everything to be free, just like the free monies you get from centrelink
>>73877198
>topic is single mothers
>Strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers.
>is behind pay wall for complete analysis
>>73877342
It's not a generalization anymore when it's experienced, anon.
>lol studies not done in Australia can't prove life in Australia
>Here, look at these studies from outside Australia that prove my point inside Australia. No need to get past the title, trust me, the title and abstract is all you need to know
>#BuzzWordCulture
>>73877386
It is a US study, provide me with an Australian Study and then I will consider paying for it.
Or are you an indirect salesperson for these people trying to get people to pay money for something that doesn't even meet your own burden of proof?
>>73877320
>>73877458
here you go no paywall: squareonemd.com/pdf/Does%20the%20Gender%20of%20Parents%20Matter%202010.pdf
>>73877612
Is it an Australian study?
Because apparently non-Australian studies don't count according to you.
>>73877589
australian study, free (like the youth allowance you get): http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635
>>73877612
>squareonemd.com/pdf/Does%20the%20Gender%20of%20Parents%20Matter%202010.pdf
>US Study
Immediately fails your own burden of proof, try again.
>>73877653
i was disputing your studies which are reviewed in this meta analysis, i also posted an australian study here >>73877680
>>73877686
this is not relevant to australia, but it is relevant to de-bundking the american studies he posted. the australian study is here:>>73877680
>>73877680
>Limited Sample Size
You do understand why this is probably never going to pass muster don't you?
Most likely not.
>>73877717
>315 parents do survey
>parents say their children are happier
Good lord, anon. Tell me this was an accidental link and you have an actual study elsewhere.
>i was disputing your studies
No, you were trying to dismiss them based on where they were done while presenting your own and ignoring your own criteria.
>>73877795
did you read the meta-analysis of the so called accurate american studies, they are all debunked as well... i'd rather believe a local study with a small sample size then some irrelevant crap from whoop whopp land which has been proven wrong by their own meta-analysis later anyway
>>73877873
did you even bother with the meta-analysis study? it shits all over the previous studies. i disputed yours, provided mine. fair enough its a small sample size im not going to argue that but its still more relevant than old debunked studies
>>73874369
Where does she say she doesn't agree with the lifestyle? Is there an article somewhere? I just saw the video
>>73877878
Not my problem, it is yours to meet your own burden of proof and you are failing, I don't want you to fail but you keep failing.
>>73877589
>squareonemd.com/pdf/Does%20the%20Gender%20of%20Parents%20Matter%202010.pdf
dont bother others will make a copy for the chans to laugh at
>>73876637
what is it with fucking social sciences that they make their fucking papers incoherent trash, the fucking study says basically nothing in long overly uncommon words that would require a fuckking degree in social sciences so you know how they define the fucking things.
the fucking paper is a meta-study of consensus of studies of trends of communities, in other fucking words the study is full of shit.
nice try youngfag
>>73878190
theres an interview with her later in the video, she outright says it to matt
>>73878150
>lol one thing I showed links directly to every study you did and more
>it's from 2010
>it disputes your studies from 2015
Again anon, good lord.
>>73878216
yep you didnt even read anything lol, sorry you get butthurt when your bias gets wrecked
>>73878263
fair enough autist, keep confirming your own bias by only looking for things that confirm it.
>>73878263
I know right, at least in the past bait threads like this had intelligent people in it who could meet their own burden of proof.
This one though, it is just sad and not even worthy of being considered shitposting, he is just making Australia look bad at this point.
>>73878267
i didnt read anything well lets let anon read everything for my tired arse eyes:
1. Introduction
A central component of the legal debate concerning recognition of same-sex unions addressed whether and how outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents differ in comparison to children raised in other family configurations. Decisions in two cases by the US Supreme Court hinged, in part, on the scientific consensus regarding these questions (United States V. Windsor, 2013 and Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013). Reflecting the centrality of childrens’ outcomes in this decision, during oral arguments, Justice Scalia suggested that “there’s considerable disagreement [a]mong sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a [s]ingle-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not” (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013: 19). Accordingly, scientific consensus became a central question for scientific papers and amici curiae briefs addressing this case (APA, 2013a, APA, 2013b, ASA, 2013, Pafford et al., 2013 and Siegel et al., 2013). For example, a brief submitted by the American Sociological Association (ASA) concludes, “Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing” (ASA, 2013: 3); and Siegel and colleagues recommend that decisions about parenting competency should be made “without regard to their parents’ gender or sexual orientation” (Siegel et al., 2013: 829). In this recent case and others, such as Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011), the relationship between social science and the law has been brought to the fore.
>>73878472
Indeed, a significant strain of legal thought relies, in part, on social science for guidance in arguing and adjudicating legal cases (Monahan and Walker, 2009). For example, expert witnesses trained in a social science may attest to the likelihood that a defendant will re-offend during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial (Uggen and Inderbitzin, 2010). Alternatively, more general evidence of the persistence of racial disparities may influence a judge’s decision about a potential violation of the Voting Rights act (for a recent example, see references to sociologist Vincent J. Roscigno’s expert testimony in NAACP v. Husted, 2014). The success of these empirically-based arguments is likely to depend in part on where scientific consensus lies on legal issues confronting the courts (Acker, 1990).
Social science has become widely incorporated into the American legal system. Indeed, every Supreme Court Justice at least since 1986 has cited social science in at least one opinion or joined an opinion that has (Acker, 1990 and Monahan and Walker, 1986).1 With this in mind, lawyers have, for some time, tried to wrangle social science to their favor collecting amicus curiae briefs and hiring social scientists as expert witnesses. Social science becomes a key element of many legal cases and the balance of these cases often hinges on arguments about the trust placed in empirical research (Collins and Evans, 2002). Further, this trust is often explicitly linked to whether a particular social scientific issue has reached a state of consensus. Although a good deal of research addresses the formation (e.g. Shwed and Bearman, 2010) and perception of scientific consensus within society generally (e.g. Oreskes (2004) on climate change), less attention has connected the tools of sociology of science to key issues before the courts. Lawyers, juries, and judges are left to determine scientific consensus on their own (Acker, 1990).
>>73878494
Systematic approaches from the sociology of science provide strategies for evaluating scientific consensus and can assist in the legal determination of the value of social science research. These approaches are particularly needed for social science evidence that aims to address issues beyond narrow determinations about issues specific to a case to, as Acker states, “general, empirical propositions about social events or relationships that may be instrumental to legal rule-making” (1990: 26). This evidence most often enters the legal record via amici curiae briefs, which may—or may not—necessarily directly engage scientific consensus on the question(s) before them.
Shwed and Bearman (2010) demonstrate one method for identifying when scientific consensus emerges. This method employs citation networks among the relevant scientific literature to provide a structural overview of consensus within a scientific community as a means of capturing content shifts. Like Shwed and Bearman (2010), we conceive of consensus as a type of closure. In other words, consensus forms when boundaries around a contentious issue are resolved or enclose around one correct answer (Shwed and Bearman, 2010 and Collins and Evans, 2002). This type of consensus forms a key dimension of how and whether social scientific research is accepted within the courts (Daubert v. Merrell, 1993). Here, we build upon their method to examine whether the research on outcomes for children of same-sex parents is marked by scientific consensus, and estimate when the attained level of consensus was achieved. These techniques can inform court decision-making, but are also worth answering independent of whether “no difference” should be the basis for adjudicating a legal decision about union legalization (Yurkewicz, 2012).
>>73878378
At this point you're not even being coherent so here, I found your pic.
>>73878384
I miss the days when Australian shitposting was masterful. I'm sorry that your new generation just can't keep up with the old. At this rate, Bantz will be a thing of the past.
>>73878508
We adapt Shwed and Bearman’s approach to the case of same-sex parenting outcomes. Our adaptation is consistent with their theoretical and methodological bases in two ways. First, a purely search-term based means for identifying the salient literature has some limitations, which requires the identification of strategies for estimating the robustness of identified patterns to potential noise in the data. Second, we note that in absence of expert “consensus statements,” akin to the one made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about anthropomorphic causes of climate change, the method also requires scientific consensus to be interpreted as a process, not solely an end-state. To preview, our analyses reveal that consensus exists on outcomes for children of same-sex parents, and arose early in the twenty first century.
>>73878263
oh look one that's from 2015, poking holes in your studies. so much trash bias from you, probably written by old biased cunts who are still butt hurt over ww2 and cant evolve with the times.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1500085X
>waiting for "paywall" comments
>>73878529
dont mind me posting a journal article
2. Background
The relationship between scientific consensus and policy is complicated. On one hand, policies can respond to scientific consensus, putting into practice recommendations that stem from empirical evidence. Alternatively, policies may be enacted prior to the identification of scientific consensus, or even agnostic to the empirical basis for such policy recommendations. Either way, if policy is to be linked to empirical scientific evidence—whether in the former situation as the basis of enacting policies or in the latter for evaluating their impacts—we require systematic means for identifying whether scientific consensus exists, and when it arises. Additionally, it is important to understand this as a dynamic unfolding process, i.e., scientific consensus itself has a life course reflecting various stages of (un-)certainty, which must be identifiable to appropriately assess its association with policy. The dynamic characteristic of consensus highlights how closure around a particular set of ideas differs from “correctness” in any metaphysical sense as the state of consensus is subject to change. Nonetheless, the question of consensus remains a key issue affecting how social policy is adjudicated in the courts.
We are specifically interested in how the legal community incorporates science, particularly social science. To that end, we provide a means to evaluate whether consensus has formed around a particular topic.2 The following overview intends to summarize pertinent legal scholarship on the relationship between social science, consensus, and the law. This overview will also illustrate that determining the state of social science research is a pressing one and reaches the highest levels of the US courts. We demonstrate one way that sociologists can help the legal community evaluate the state of consensus within a (social) scientific field.
>>73878514
found a pic of you too :), also if my baiting is so bad how come you've spent the last hour on this thread. LOL
>>73878573
>>73878533
unless you didnt realise yet faggot here is a paywall breaker
2.1. Social science and the law
Social science has entered legal discussions with mixed success since the 1908 Muller v. Oregon case widely seen as the first to systematically engage social science research. Numerous social scientists and legal scholars recognize the inconsistent reception of social science as a serious problem (Acker, 1990, Grunwald, 2012 and Monahan and Walker, 1986). At the level of the US Supreme Court, several key decisions, most notably Brown v. Board of Education, have drawn heavily on social science. However, the value of social science for legal arguments has not led to its systematic use. In fact, in several key decisions Justices in the majority explicitly identify their own disagreement with summarizations of social scientific findings made by social scientists. The majority opinion in Lockhart v. McCree serves as one example (see Bersoff, 1987 for an insider’s view). This case centered upon the issue of whether the exclusion of anti-death penalty jurors in capital criminal cases, or cases that could result in a sentence of death, could affect the guilt-phase of a trial. The Supreme Court had previously established that jurors could be excluded for holding anti-death penalty views as these potential jurors were essentially telling the judge that they would not follow the law during the sentencing phase (Witherspoon v. Illinois, 1968). As most death penalty states have a sole jury determining both guilt and sentence, jurors with anti-death penalty beliefs were excluded from both the guilt and sentencing phases.
>>73878573
As Bersoff (1987: 54) describes, Witherspoon is one of the few cases where the Court issues an “invitation to social scientists to develop data to help it in resolving a crucial point of law.” This crucial point is whether those willing to impose a death sentence are more likely to convict a defendant than those anti-death penalty jurors who are excluded from all phases of a capital trial. Social psychologists took the Court’s challenge seriously and built a small, but robust literature consistently describing how the exclusion of anti-death penalty jurors indeed increases the likelihood of convictions. The American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief to Lockhart v. McCree (1986), a case challenging the Witherspoon decision, summarizing these findings. Yet, the five Justices signing the majority opinion written by Justice Rehnquist fundamentally disagreed with this summary arguing that there were “several serious flaws” in the presented social science evidence (see Lockhart, 1986 and Bersoff, 1987).
>>73878533
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1500085X
>US Study
It is like you are deliberately failing because you have been boxed in by your own logic, so sad.
>>73878677
More recently, in his consenting opinion on the school desegregation case Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), Justice Thomas writes that serious disputes within social science on the positive effects of diversity programs call to question the educational benefits of “coerced racial mixing.” He concludes that we should not leave our “equal-protection jurisprudence at the mercy of elected government officials evaluating the evanescent views of a handful of social scientists” (2007:766).3 Needless to say, the reception of social scientific data has been neither universal nor unanimous, but is subject to interpretation and debate. While some of the disagreement regarding social scientific data may be based on credibility gaps between the social and natural sciences (Wechsler et al., forthcoming), numerous scholars argue that it is often the variation within standards of practice placed on social scientific data by both social scientists and jurors that are most in question (e.g. Sorensen and Sharkey, 2011, Acker, 1990 and Monahan and Walker, 1986). What properties of social science lead to its inconsistent incorporation by the legal community?
>>73878221
Kek. Love these Arab trolls.
>>73878701
One major sticking point for wider incorporation of social science is the diverse tasks asked of social scientific research. Social scientists are asked to both contribute to establishing facts specific to a case, or “adjudicative facts,” and to address issues that speak to facts more generally, or “legislative facts.” To the latter point, Monahan and Walker (1986) argue that social scientific evidence should not solely be treated as facts in a legal sense, but as “social authority” more akin to precedent. In this and subsequent work on “social frameworks,” Monahan and Walker (1986) outline a systematic approach to incorporating social science into normative determinations based on the principle of generalizability. As they write:
Research used in the creation of a rule of law – for example, studies on the effects of school segregation on self-esteem, the effects of exposure to pornography on anti-social behavior, or the deterrent value of the death penalty – has the same kind of future-oriented generality that case precedent possesses (1986: 41).
>>73878609
Because I can multitask and do multiple things at once and it is amusing watching you flail about and do google searches to find topics to continue baiting.
In essence the baiter is being baited, which when you think about it is the new meta.
>>73878725
Social science research should not be limited to adjudicating facts - psychological analysis of a particular person or case – but can pertain to more fundamental and less transitory aspects of the law. Indeed, much of the social science research advanced within the courts, especially the higher courts, seeks to do just that.
To more deeply engage and gain the trust of the legal community, Monahan and Walker (1986) argue that social science research must meet several standards that relate both to the content and the structure of research. These standards parallel familiar principles of sound methodology, such as validity and generalizability. Moreover, these issues as they pertain to expert scientific witnesses were more formally resolved by the Court in its Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993). This opinion outlines guidance for how judges are to interpret scientific testimony. The characteristics include whether (1) the expert’s theory can and has been tested, (2) it has been peer reviewed, (3) it identifies and measures error, (4) this error is controlled, and (5) the social scientific research in question has “attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community” (1993: 12).
>>73878683
how do you not see there are two separate things going on here.
i asked for an australian study, he provides studies from other countries
i provide studies from australia
i also provide studies from other countries that poke holes in his study
lol, is it hard to keep up with 2 things that are going on in the 1 thread??? maybe you should lay off sniffing paint for a while
>>73878755
I assume no1 is reading this utter garbage
Identifying the heavy-burden placed on the courts to determine the value of a particular body of social science research, Acker (1990) advocates an organizational approach that incorporates greater participation by professional associations in submitting amici curiae briefs. Acker (1990) argues that Justices appreciate social science so much that they expend a great deal of time trying to figure it out. Like Monahan and Walker (1986), Acker further argues that professional organizations “can make an important contribution to the transmission of social science information to the justices, and that social scientists need not serve only as after-the-fact critics of the Court’s opinions” (1990: 40). In this context, professional organizations, like the ASA or APA, provide a key sorting mechanism for summarizing relevant literature and identifying points of consensus, a necessary function when there is a glut of information as is the case in many scientific subfields. This encourages professional organizations to play a direct role in guiding public interpretations of its findings.
>>73878533
It's a reassessment of a study discussing the "potential" for classification.
It says it right there in the abstract.
It doesn't even appear to have been reviewed either.
Are you even reading what you're posting anymore?
Or are you flailing around like a raging yowie in the hopes of finding the 'one definitive study that will definitively disprove anything anyone else says?
>>73878742
>is neandethal
>googles "gay parents bad"
>posts link
IM TEH SMARTEST gaiz!!!
>>73878783
>>73878769
you think this trash that you linked to is from Aus? how delusional
The state of consensus can be and often is identified cognitively as experts writing briefs or participating as scientific witnesses use their training to identify the state of their field (Shwed and Bearman, 2010). However, this lack of formalism permits easy disagreement as one scholar’s immersive inspection may considerably differ from another’s. This difference can result from the state of information glut itself: The parsing of a literature is far more complicated than it once was because many subfields have grown dramatically. How and whether expert witnesses provide a fair summary of the literature is one point of contention identified in the debate over the testimony in Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011). The respondents in this case alleged that their employer, Wal-Mart, discriminated against them because of their sex. They sought relief for themselves and for 1.5 million other female Wal-Mart employees. A sociologist, William Bielby, participated as an expert witness in this case concluding based on his research that Wal-Mart’s organizational practices contributed to “disparities between men and women in their compensation and career trajectories at the company” (Bielby, 2003: 408). Wal-Mart petitioned the Court to deny the class action. The ASA sided with Bielby and filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the respondents. But, the Court ultimately sided with Wal-Mart and singled out the expert testimony as being particularly faulty stating that it “does nothing to advance the respondents’ case” (Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 2011).
>>73878609
You're being so fresh, I thought your were from West Philadelphia.
>>73878769
Really, because that is not what I have seen so far, all I have seen is you being baited to find more studies while I have not provided a single link.
Ergo you have done more work while I have done nothing except make you work harder than what I have.
How does it feel to be so easily manipulated by someone who should "lay off sniffing paint for a while"?
>>73878829
Following Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a debate developed about the role of sociology and the law ( Mitchell et al., 2011, Nielsen et al., 2011, Sorensen and Sharkey, 2011 and Tomaskovic-Devey, 2011). This debate illustrates the multidimensional standards required for successful dialogue between social science and the legal system as it both addresses standards of evidence, which can be read as an issue of content, and arguments regarding the state of a field, which can be read as a question of both content and structure. For example, the majority opinion challenges whether Bielby’s evidence provides “significant proof” of discrimination (Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 2011). Nielsen et al. (2011) defend the ASA brief and the standard of evidence provided by Bielby arguing that his analysis is replicable and systematic. On the other hand, Sorensen and Sharkey (2011) argue that the ASA brief falsely claims that a consensus has formed around the effects of personnel practices. Nielsen et al. (2011) respond that this literature is more resolved than Sorensen and Sharkey allow. This case illustrates the importance of accounting for both standards of evidence and systematically addressing the description of research fields. Formal techniques for evaluating consensus provide one way out of this interpretive conundrum as, at minimum, it explicates a systematic strategy used to operationalize consensus.
>>73878879
2.2. In search of consensus
Research in the sociology of science and information sciences provides promising directions for analyzing the trajectory of research fields. For example, Shwed and Bearman (2010) propose a network-based strategy for evaluating the temporal evolution of scientific consensus within a literature. Their approach relies on identifying the potentially salient corpus of literature on a subject, then constructing and analyzing a citation network among the papers in that corpus. A citation network is a directed network that captures the potential ordering of influence from cited papers to citing papers. That is, the ties in a citation network represent that each reference in a citing paper reflects the potential influence of each cited paper in the development of the ideas in the focal paper. A network of these citations can then be analyzed to identify common citation practices within the corpus.
Scientific consensus in these citation networks is best reflected by a concept known as community detection, which can evolve over time (Shwed and Bearman, 2010). Conceptually, communities are tightly knit segments of a population. In turn, the analytic idea behind identifying network communities relies on finding subsections of the network where most ties (in our case, cites) occur within the group as compared to across groups (Fortunato, 2010 and Porter et al., 2009). The overall level of segmentation into different communities can be used to identify how many communities there are in a given network, and how well those communities account for the general pattern of ties (citations) within the network (of papers). Shwed and Bearman (2010) demonstrate that consensus in a literature is consistent with identifying when modularity--a summary statistic of the overall segmentation among identified communities--attains a sustained low equilibrium level or resolves to a consistently low score.
thanks to all autists for participating, its been fun!
the level of retarded on the chan is phenomenal
cya next time
>>73875786
>also by that logic we should take kids away from single mothers
can't do this without giving the government even more power
>>73878879
lets see if this shit works if not fuckit i'll post the method and be done its a shit article
>>73878919
Noice radio station plug cunt.
>Waits to see if he takes the b8 and scurries back....
>>73879138
meh the faggot left, that was some seriously shit shitposting. I'll finish off the shit study so ppl can laugh at the shit he thought had gravitas
>>73879266
>>73879313
>>73879341
>>73879266
It would be funny if it weren't so depressing. It's like that feminist glacier shit.
See pic.
>>73879368
aahhh first time posting in this shithole and it's posting illegal shit. Truly the right way to post
>>73874369
Great to hear! Lesbians are the most degenerate people in the world.
