British politics - a good shit show

Health insurance rip off lying FDA big bankers buying
Fake computer crashes dining
Cloning while they're multiplying
Fashion shoots with Beck and Hanson
Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson
You're all fakes
Run to your mansions
Come around
We'll kick your ass in

Postby Feech La Manna » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:08 pm

They're not really poor because they could be trying harder, it's just standard garbage conservatism
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 76789
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

Postby mercenaries of slime » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:48 pm

crosspost with 'tweets that stick with you'

User avatar
mercenaries of slime
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:50 pm

Postby Kenny » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:14 pm

I bet Theresa and Philip May spend any free evenings sitting quietly on the couch with their hands folded on their laps with the tv off
Image [PEACE] [LOVE] [UNITY] [RESPECT] ImageImage

Hi, I'm Kenny. I'm a Sagittarius and I love old video games and drinking craft beers.
User avatar
Kenny
"Two Phones" Maccabee
 
Posts: 19461
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:04 am
Location: https://i.imgur.com/YhvNstr.jpg

Postby Geoff » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:16 pm

at least she likes cricket
User avatar
Geoff
i like jazz
 
Posts: 5986
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:33 am

Postby Geoff » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:17 pm

big zorb wrote:Wait so if you're starving now but you might not be in five years you're not poor?


yeah that's a pretty silly definition, I think it needs to be in present tense only.
User avatar
Geoff
i like jazz
 
Posts: 5986
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:33 am

Postby Feech La Manna » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:17 pm

Geoff wrote:at least she likes cricket


Has her knowledge been tested

Could be a John Kerry "Manny Ortiz" situation
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 76789
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

Postby pana » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:20 pm

User avatar
pana
 
Posts: 65019
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:32 pm

Postby deadbass » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:22 pm

I, for one, am glad that poverty isn’t defined by random message board users!
User avatar
deadbass
 
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:51 pm

Postby object » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:47 pm

theresa may is a kind of protestant caricature
User avatar
object
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:17 pm
Location: flying waterbed

Postby Hauntedattic » Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:53 pm

Geoff wrote:
big zorb wrote:Wait so if you're starving now but you might not be in five years you're not poor?


yeah that's a pretty silly definition, I think it needs to be in present tense only.


We are not talking about an absolute measure like starving here - if we are 30% of all uk children are starving apparently!!! .

For relative measures - Time & persistance are important. For instance, in the report it states 39.7% (!!!) of all families with a child under 5 are in poverty. This is clearly a time bound factor that I do not think add anything other than sensationalism. It's like including young apprentices or students because they have no income / assets even though their are deliberately investing for future gain.

This whole issue is dealt with in the report under persistance of poverty (something I've not had time to scrutinise the findings on).
Hauntedattic
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:29 am

Postby Geoff » Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:59 pm

can you agree poverty levels should be considered as a relative judgement rather than an absolute?

Eg, if you believe it is relative, then you wouldn't be able to make a comparison to the poverty suffered in more developing nations.
User avatar
Geoff
i like jazz
 
Posts: 5986
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:33 am

Postby mercenaries of slime » Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:59 pm

Hauntedattic wrote:
Geoff wrote:
big zorb wrote:Wait so if you're starving now but you might not be in five years you're not poor?


yeah that's a pretty silly definition, I think it needs to be in present tense only.


We are not talking about an absolute measure like starving here - if we are 30% of all uk children are starving apparently!!! .


*hums*

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-bank-uk-benefits-trussell-trust-cost-of-living-highest-rate-a8317001.html
User avatar
mercenaries of slime
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:50 pm

Postby Merciel » Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:16 pm

Hauntedattic wrote:For instance, in the report it states 39.7% (!!!) of all families with a child under 5 are in poverty. This is clearly a time bound factor that I do not think add anything other than sensationalism. It's like including young apprentices or students because they have no income / assets even though their are deliberately investing for future gain.


What makes you think it's "clearly" a time bound factor?

Also, and separately: do you think there's no difference in a child's development when their formative years are experienced as poor and unstable vs. affluent and secure?
User avatar
Merciel
Hipinion Dog Lady
 
Posts: 24701
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: dog dog dog

Postby Feech La Manna » Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:37 pm

LOL at Mr. “Jez will tax me into oblivion” accusing a poverty metric of sensationalism
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 76789
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

Postby miss black america » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:13 pm

could we try and de-fang the poverty discussion by referring to kids as "absolutely hank marvin"
hahaha mad me chuckle that
User avatar
miss black america
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:11 am
Location: bs7

Postby deadbass » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:19 pm

It’s like I didn’t even make a post on the previous page defining relative poverty and how it is derived.
User avatar
deadbass
 
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:51 pm

Postby Hauntedattic » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:21 pm

Merciel wrote:
Hauntedattic wrote:For instance, in the report it states 39.7% (!!!) of all families with a child under 5 are in poverty. This is clearly a time bound factor that I do not think add anything other than sensationalism. It's like including young apprentices or students because they have no income / assets even though their are deliberately investing for future gain.


What makes you think it's "clearly" a time bound factor?

Also, and separately: do you think there's no difference in a child's development when their formative years are experienced as poor and unstable vs. affluent and secure?


The section on child poverty by age. How the % of those in poverty decreases from near 40% to near 25% once youngest child is over 5 (which makes sense according to their methodology as day care costs presumably go down).

Point 2. Of course I do! All my point is I'm not sure its helpful to say 40% of UK children are born into instability and poverty.
Hauntedattic
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:29 am

Postby Merciel » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:23 pm

Why don't you think it's helpful?
User avatar
Merciel
Hipinion Dog Lady
 
Posts: 24701
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: dog dog dog

Postby Hauntedattic » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:35 pm

Because I think the numbers quoted are overblown and casts into doubt the whole issue (which is real for those genuinely affected)
Hauntedattic
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:29 am

Postby mercenaries of slime » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:36 pm

lol
User avatar
mercenaries of slime
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:50 pm

Postby Merciel » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:40 pm

Is that because you think it's impossible for 40% of the children in a wealthy nation to be born into poverty and instability, or because you have a specific, concrete disagreement with how that definition is achieved?

So far most of your posts seem to suggest the latter but I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning to support the position. It seems like you want to reach that conclusion and are doing your best to reason backward from emotion, which I would suggest is perhaps something you might want to spend a minute examining.
User avatar
Merciel
Hipinion Dog Lady
 
Posts: 24701
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: dog dog dog

Postby Feech La Manna » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:44 pm

Perhaps these so-called “poor” toddlers should strap on their big boy trousers
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 76789
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

Postby Hauntedattic » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:36 pm

Geoff wrote:can you agree poverty levels should be considered as a relative judgement rather than an absolute?

Eg, if you believe it is relative, then you wouldn't be able to make a comparison to the poverty suffered in more developing nations.


I believe both can be useful but poverty is an emotional term and when poorly defined and dilutative, I believe its fair to call it insulting.
Hauntedattic
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:29 am

Postby Hauntedattic » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:43 pm

Merciel wrote:Is that because you think it's impossible for 40% of the children in a wealthy nation to be born into poverty and instability, or because you have a specific, concrete disagreement with how that definition is achieved?

So far most of your posts seem to suggest the latter but I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning to support the position. It seems like you want to reach that conclusion and are doing your best to reason backward from emotion, which I would suggest is perhaps something you might want to spend a minute examining.


I have called out some specific concrete examples of why I think that definition is poor namely its calculation of assets/wealth, the ignoring of non immediate sources of income (pension), the use of an arbitrary 55% of median poverty line (read that section BTW and how important that factor is). I think I've been pretty transparent as to how I arrived at that position. No one else has even really have challenged me on that - it's more just ad hominem and putting words in my mouth.
Hauntedattic
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:29 am

Postby Hauntedattic » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:43 pm

miss black america wrote:could we try and de-fang the poverty discussion by referring to kids as "absolutely hank marvin"


I support this motion.
Hauntedattic
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:29 am

Postby Ted Pikul » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:44 pm

I don’t think children have pensions usually
loaf angel wrote:I love how Ted makes every thread as a testament to how fucking boring he is.

"I bought a new garden hose mk 2"
User avatar
Ted Pikul
DARE.
 
Posts: 33432
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Salvador Dali's garden party

Postby Hauntedattic » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:36 pm

Ted Pikul wrote:I don’t think children have pensions usually


If the analysis is only taking into account children's incomes then 60% of kids must be getting some serious pocket money.
Hauntedattic
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:29 am

Postby Ted Pikul » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:56 pm

I don’t think people with young children have pensions usually
loaf angel wrote:I love how Ted makes every thread as a testament to how fucking boring he is.

"I bought a new garden hose mk 2"
User avatar
Ted Pikul
DARE.
 
Posts: 33432
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Salvador Dali's garden party

Postby pokethedoke » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:48 am

so what's the verdict? Is this show good or is it shit?
User avatar
pokethedoke
 
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:44 am

Postby object » Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:47 am

It's a bit repetitive at this stage
User avatar
object
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:17 pm
Location: flying waterbed

PreviousNext

Return to Mamma Mia... Here We Go Again....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a is jump, a new dad for all, ahungbunny, Autarch, average deceiver, axelrod gunnarson, banquo, barrier, Bartatua, Barthes Starr, blue sunshine, bluemovers, bobble, brittle, bruceagain, butter, can, Clive, clownwig, Cone, Cronos, dan, DasLofGang, Dead_Wizard, deadbass, denvermax, dr. badvibes, draw, Egads, endless dave, Eyeball Kid, Ferrous Bueller, fester, folkface, FourLegsGood, Franco, Frank, fuckles, fury, Future, grace cathedral park, guy forget, Gyant, hansibansix, hideout, hologram, honeypie, hyperbole man, iacus, iambic, Infinite Jost, internethandle, internetjane, Intervalo, Jabberwocky, jack, Kevin McCallister, kirito, laserblast, loaf angel, Magazine, Marlon Rando, meanie shrubs, Mesh, messier object, naturemorte, neely o'hara, OKterrific, palmer eldritch, pantsoclock, Peter Dinklage, pink snake, Quizzical, ric_joe, rich uncle skeleton, shankly, shark week, Shotfrog, shrinemaidens, Sobieski, southpaw, speakers, Subbacultcha, surly, tgk, thanksbutnothanksman, timbrrr, transitive, trigross, trouble, uncleoswald, viachicago, wolfie, wuk, Your Turret Has Been Destroyed, yungboi