Hard News: Just marketing to the base
337 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
Correlating welfare and infant mortality rates is statistically an impossible mission.
Unless you are prepared to use multivariate statistical control techniques as the paper I cited earlier does. Path analysis is a type of multiple regression focussed on finding causal relationships. It uses an analysis of covariance to estimate causality.
The number of factors involved that make up a society will always make any result questionable, but the most pressing concern is the lack of control to any analysis.
See above mentioned path analysis. Also see multivariate statistics for a list of associated academic fields which have found a way to deal with this issue.
I accept that countries with welfare may generally have better mortality rates, but the causal factor is more likely the lack of medical infrastructure.
Says Grant, with not a shred of evidence or the slightest hint of experience in the field.
See the earlier cited paper by experts in the field for a more detailed refutation.I'm prepared to concede that welfare states have generally lower infant mortality rates, but I am not obliged to accept that welfare is the reason for such.
You're not obliged to admit that 1 + 1 = 2 either.
-
**If** you think that's a perfectly reasonable existence for someone working full time in the richest country in the world, then Jackie's right. Except I'd probably add 'idiotic' as a modifier.
I mostly agree, except that I'd argue that it's not a question of If... Then. Jackie's right either way.
-
Grant - you're a dick.
I'd like to say that you're speaking for me there Jackie, but that's no where near strong enough. I'm undecided if he's just being a prick, or is showing all the signs of having no empathy at all. Either of which is quite sad really.
-
showing all the signs of having no empathy at all
This, I think, is the key point. It's a bit scary.
The abortion thread was actually more annoying, because it depended so much on unverifiable assertions. This thread, in which Grant is being comprehensively pwned with actual facts and studies and all that jazz, is much more satisfying.
Not that it will make a blind bit of difference to him, of course.
-
What, on Earth, is a working homeless?
Picky bugger ain't he? It's obvious to any sentient being that in the context of the sentence means "a working homeless person" but we are dealing with Grunt Dickster.
You think people are obliged to give to those in need .. I don't.
Yet this troll claims to be a Christian, perhaps he doesn't know what that entails.
Like the actual fact and logic that I'd have to take a pay-cut when it wouldn't actually be a pay-cut?
I, for one, would like Grunt to explain how that works. I won't hold my breath for a sensible answer.
-
I think a contradiction Grant could explore is why it's not OK to legislate for charity, but it is ok to legislate on other Christian moral grounds.
-
That small matter of legislated tax exemption for churches would be an ideal smaller point for Grunt to wrap his tiny mind around for our benefit. Although in a faith-based world, 1+1 = god, so I suppose he'll come up with any answer he feels like.
one shouldn't say anything to someone online that one wouldn't say to their face offline.
My point earlier about what would happen to Grunt in a real-world gathering was along the same lines. He'd end up in the street and at least one of us would be regretting coming face to face with our darker side in the process.
Given his tolerance of Grunt, our host wouldn't have left himself much room to act on that unless he's clinging to an old-fashioned distinction between verbally and physically polluting a conversation space to the detriment of everyone else in it. Online, the effect is the same and banning is why clubs hire bouncers.
That's partly to protect the patrons from themselves, just as our legal system acts on our behalf so we don't need to. Not pleasant, but justice is a function in any society. Ironically, Grunt will know exactly what I'm saying while the turn-the-cheek brigade may be all upset with me. See, he really improves the quality of conversation, doesn't he.
-
"You think people are obliged to give to those in need .. I don't."
Yet this troll claims to be a Christian, perhaps he doesn't know what that entails.Cos charity has worked so well in the past - well, if you're not the one feeling great about how generous you're being. Street collectors report that the stingiest neighbourhoods are where rich folk live.
But then Grunt aint interested in reality. If only he'd stick to cricket, which I think he'll find is not a faith-based game and where the rules are not voluntary. Including gravity.
-
Street collectors report that the stingiest neighbourhoods are where rich folk live.
I wouldn't call that in any way significant. For one thing, how many "rich" people actually live with cash? Given anecdotal reports from budget advisors about how many high-earning people are up to their eyeballs in credit card debt, I'd not be in the least surprised if many of these "stingy rich folks" actually just don't have cash to give because they live their lives on plastic.
For another, I would again not be surprised if donations on these "stingy streets" are in the form of regular, electronic or postal donations.If you can find me a better statistic than just street collectors, I'll concede the point. But in world where cash is becoming rare and electronic payment is totally ordinary I just cannot give it much credence.
Oh, and have you considered that a lot of people tend to be of the view that they cannot possibly, reasonably support every charity that's out there, so they pick one or two "pet" charities and only donate to those? I know quite a few people who give to one or two causes, but give fairly generously (three-figure donations a year) to them.
-
If you can find me a better statistic than just street collectors, I'll concede the point.
I'll add to the dubious anecdotal evidence: I use to work in the BNZ transaction processing centre, back in the day when they still got people rather than machines to put the cheques through in the evenings. When the donations for the charities came through, you could tell when it was somebody on a budget who was donating, since it would be for a very specific amount (say, 26 dollars 50) as opposed to a nice round figure. My impression was always that these greatly outnumbered the 50 or 100 dollar figures, especially in the run up to Christmas.
-
I'll add to the dubious anecdotal evidence: I use to work in the BNZ transaction processing centre, back in the day when they still got people rather than machines to put the cheques through in the evenings.
I'll accept that your experience is a rather more indicative, since it doesn't hinge on the availability of cash to donate, but the dark ages is a little long ago to be hugely relevant :P
Maybe I'm giving the "rich" too much credit (har har). Maybe because I give a lot of time to the community and trade that off against giving money (of which I don't have so much), I expect people who are money-rich but time-poor to do the converse.
When I was in the Fire Service I was giving (since I was a volunteer) at least 750 hours a year, and I just couldn't make myself feel guilty for not donating to every charity that came past the door. So I'm loathe to judge others for not giving money to street collectors. -
Tony, it does not matter how well investigated the numbers are .. my point is that the data just isn't available in order to compare different countries with regard to mortality rates and welfare. If you could link to the poper you cited then I might be able to show what I mean.
Stephen, when I say it's not OK to legislate charity I don't mean that it is wrong. Just that it does not meet needs but rather forces people to meet certain standards of poverty in order to benefit. It is not OK to steal. When it comes to taxation there might be a fuzzy sort of distinction between the cash a government is justified in claiming and that which it is not. But I do not think a welfare state is anywhere near that fuzziness :)
Of course it is ok to legislate on other Christian moral grounds. Though I wouldn't claim them as Christian. It should be never OK to murder, rape, steal and kidnap.
-
OK to legislate for Grunt's idea of christianity, but not others. Tax is theft, blah blah blah. Back to your cricket, you waste of space.
-
What, on Earth, is a working homeless? Who qualifies to make up that demographic?
What a curious question.
The working homeless are people who do not earn enough to cover housing costs and must dwell in shelters or live rough.
In America, their numbers have considerably increased in the wake of welfare reform.
Many of them are in families.
Hey, are all Pauline Christians like you?
-
"It should be never OK to murder, rape, steal and kidnap."
Sayeth the Grunt.
How about
*assault (including beating up children & torture)
*profiteering (yeah, I know that's going to yank the leashes of some)
*racial or gender discrimination
*extortion
*environmental destruction or deliberate damaging thereof-
*species murder (hello amphibians! I'm on your side! Not to mention primate cuzzies-)?While I'd prefer to continue to offer the troll chunder just *sometimes* you get interested in what it would respond with, y'know? Tho' I rather think I know already, judging by it's past posts-
-
Matthew, your explanations seem sensible for low donation rates to street collectors in suburbs like Remuera, Fendalton and Khandallah. My point was anecdotal like Giovanni's.
Grunt won't change his tune and others here aren't that stupid, so I'm not going to waste time digging out stats about the failure of charity. I'm happy just to point to the United States as an example of what we can expect by abolishing welfare. Thank goodness no one is suggesting it in our country.
-
I think the USA suffers from too much pressure from both sides. Basically, because one group is strongly against welfare and one strongly for, you wind up with the worst of both worlds. Thus the poor do not benefit from either benefits or the relief that lower taxes would bring.
-
I don't mind acknowledging that was a coherent and reasonable comment, Grant - keep em up and we'll be fine.
-
O, it doesnt respond?
*What* a surprise! -
Thanks, Sacha :)
-
Tony, it does not matter how well investigated the numbers are .. my point is that the data just isn't available in order to compare different countries with regard to mortality rates and welfare. If you could link to the poper you cited then I might be able to show what I mean.
Grant, it does matter how well the numbers are investigated. It also matters whether you know what you are talking about. My point is that experts who spend their lives studying such things have the data to compare different countries with regard to mortality rates and welfare. They have concluded that welfare programs cause a general decrease in infant mortality.
You can order a copy of the aforementioned paper from here for €13.87 or you could go to a good library and get it for free.
Generally the next argument of somebody of your ilk when confronted with this type of evidence is to accuse the experts of having fabricated the evidence in order to support their own world view (e.g. climate change denialists). So please feel free to take that tack now.
-
I can't share my view on their work as I am not going to spend a thousand dollars paing for it. Regardless, I do know what I'm talking about and I do know that it takes more than a few statistical models to show causation for a complex relationship claim such as this.
I fully agree that welfare correlates to mortality rates. Unfortunately for your point to bear some weight you will have to account for the vastly different cultures being brought in. Each country has its own set of factors that will skew statistics. I could probably name you 6 factors for both sets of data that will need to be adjusted for. Statistical models just aren't equipped to analyse such things and your acceptance of the papers you cite does betray something. The evidence is not fabricated, the correlation is real, but the conclusions are not necessarily warranted.
-
Statistical models just aren't equipped to analyse such things and your acceptance of the papers you cite does betray something.
Actually sometimes I run ecological statistical models with up to 20 explanatory variables and scores of dependent variables. The statistical models I use analyse and explain very complex relationships in all sorts of clever ways. My acceptance of the papers I cite betrays my acceptance of the scientific method and the system of scientific publication that it rests on. While I am not a social scientist I am willing to believe the evidence that they publish in peer reviewed journals.
Your refusal to accept this illustrates (yet again) your general refusal to believe anything that doesn't line up with your preconceived biblically driven prejudices. -
I'm certain that you do. But all those numbers mean nothing if the assumptions made in setting up the study are wrong.
-
But until you bother reading the paper you have no idea about any of the assumptions made in setting up the study, do you?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.