Some things are blatantly obvious if you peel your eyes occasionally and observe humanity.
So, yeah, where is the research?
Well, there is none, because apart from tabloid smearing lies, there is none.
What is "obvious" is how nasty people are in the UK towards the poor working classes, who are under constant attack.
The people described by myself are not bound by class, but by attitude and morals. There is no class distinction involved.
The problem is not specific to one traditional "class".
The whole "tabloid smearing lies" drivel is another form of enforced division by promoting classes of reading.
This sort of stuff annoys me.
(for reference I have never purchased a newspaper and rarely even bother to look at the news unless it's technology related)
What a convenient fantasy.
> The problem is not specific to one traditional "class".
Except it is, because it is only a problem by the implication that signs of wealth means that insufficient money must have been used on what is needed for the infant
There are no classes other than in the media.
Secondly, health is more important than purchasing branded and luxury goods. That is universally accepted as to shortcut ones health is to cause harm and the "golden rule" backs that up. To observe both signs of wealth and signs of poverty at the same time has certain obvious implications.
It's all logic.
I believe you in your claim that ethics and morals are independent of class. But that is entirely irrelevant to the argument over the existence of classes.
> There are no classes other than in the media.
So everyone have the same economic means and same influence over their life? The owner of a factory and the worker of a factory's interests are directly aligned with each others?
> To observe both signs of wealth and signs of poverty at the same time has certain obvious implications.
I'm not quite so sure the implications are as obvious as what you claim. But that is in any case irrelevant, as individual observations are still just that.
> It's all logic.
Logic does not substitute for missing data.
Interesting then that you made that comment about Asda and not Waitrose.
Demand for food-banks in the UK has soared. But if only they didn't spend it on fags and wide-screen TVs they'd be able to eat.
I presented a hypothesis, which you can turn into a theory by sitting outside ASDA for a bit with a clipboard and a copy of SPSS. My suggestion was that you should try it.
Apart from that, the location itself would introduce a bias, and I'm curious how exactly you would recognize women in the process of spending the maternity grant.
You specify the problem the wrong way around.
The women got pregnant because the maternity grant was offered as is a cosy council house and a career of being pregnant. That's how it works here.
When you have three children like myself you spend a lot of time around parents and maternity units and the general consensus of the particular social stereotype is that a baby is a meal ticket and the £500 would go nicely on some Uggs and enough Silk Cut to get you through the first 9 months after it's born.
You can see the results of the maternity grant spending at ASDA which is basically the decked out in designer brand children being pushed around in their expensive buggy but the mother is buying £50 worth of cigarettes and her other three children are consigned to economy grade processed meat wrapped in breadcrumbs and some reconstituted potato product and some panda pops as their entire diet.
It's not down to poverty: just selfish idiocy, apathy and a complete lack of morals and ethics.
You and your attitude disgust me.
Sorry, HN, this is the first time I have had to post here like this. But I cannot let this "person" get away with such garbage. Not here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5818507
I try to live a life which is entirely ethical and I treat people with respect where earned. I will not be an apologist though and if I find something morally reprehensible I will exercise my right to mention it as you are exercising your right to criticise (which I accept).
Your comment by nature is to demote the "right wing" which means you are playing to typical partisan political ideologies.
I care not for either.
My using the "observable" trump card, I could claim that it is usual to hang around billionaires all day and spend the working day sailing. I've observed that first hand.
But without evidence of frequency, it is a meaningless observation that is more likely to say something about observational biases than society at large.
What a vicious circle we create by demanding citations for any claim.
Philosophical note:
1. I think things that are desirable are easy to offer citations for because there is a motivation to promote the desirable.
2. Conversely, things that are not desirably are not researched by people who do not desire the result.
So the citation is moot if either way it is biased. If you ever read any medical papers, they are a fine example. Look at the efficacy of Seroxat/Paroxetine for a fine example. GSK papers = utterly wonder drug. Independent researchers = suicide pills.
Which is where we stand on everything more complicated than basic scientific issues.
Applying that to my point, there is nothing citable as the result is probably not politically desirable.
It's all "in my humble opinion".
That it's happened at least once, I have no doubt. But I think you mean to use the phrase "was used to buy" to mean that it happens often enough to base a policy decision upon.
The useful questions are "how often does it happen?" and more importantly "did yanking the policy lead to overall improved infant mortality rates?"
Those cannot be answered by "sitting outside ASDA [in Feltham or Hounslow] for a bit." As an extreme example, even if 100% of the people in those two places immediately pop into an off-license, use the money to buy liquor, walk outside, and pour it down the drain, you would need to see if that pattern is the same across the country.
In this extreme example, it might be that 0% of the rest of the country misuses their funds. There are 254,00 people in the London Borough of Hounslow. There are 62 million people in the United Kingdom. If no one else misused those funds, then an overall misuse rate of 0.4% across the entire country is rather good, and the appropriate policy decision would be to understand what is special about Hounslow and how that one region might be improved.
Thus, doing as you suggest would not provide sufficient information to establish an answer for my first question, much less my second.
While you write "Some things are blatantly obvious if you peel your eyes occasionally and observe humanity.", it's very hard to "peel your eyes" and see things when you aren't there.
How many cases of infant mortality have you seen?
I did not state it was citable or sound, but an observation.
The observation/hypothesis is valuable as it's the starting point for a discussion.
Presenting the extreme is disingenuous.
The answer to the correctness of my argument is neither yes or no - it is simply mu.
You responded with an extreme, which was disingenuous, I agree.
In any case, any Hofstader fan knows what you mean now. Thank you for confirming that you agree that there is no meaningful basis for your opinion that the UK government should change its aid policies, and that your personal observations of the matter are not relevant.