I know the differences, probably more than you realise.
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.
Your original statement was "the maternity grant (until yanked by the government) was used to buy designer gear for the mother, ..."
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.
Others in this topic's comment page made observations to the contrary. Thus a discussion can go no further without more information. That's why you were asked for "citation referencing these problems."
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.
Then you should know that your hypothesis remains unsupported by any data until that is done, and that it's not the job of people who doubt your hypothesis to do so.
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.
Yes it is unsupported. I admit that. But it's clearly observable. I'm sure many people here observe it regularly.
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.
Sorry, but you are simply trotting out right wing UK tabloid lies. Please stop it. As a Brit, I find you and your lies crass and offensive. You see what you chose to see, and assume it applies to all. Mean while, you are Mr Perfect, right?
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry, but since your comment is entirely unsupported by a citation explaining philosophical fallacies or similar, your criticism remains unsupported, and hence it's not the job of the person you're responding to to satisfy your demand.
What a vicious circle we create by demanding citations for any claim.
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.
