Dear RObert,

Of course stats are only part of the story.
There can be so many other contributing
factors in any given situation. However let us
think about the importance of stats in general.
Stats allow us to make sense of and interpret a
great deal of information. By using stats we can
organise and interpret information in a meaningful
way. That is why statistics are a vital part of
one's studies when studying subjects like Psychology,
and of course - Sociology.

With the study of human society and social behaviour
the sociologist's subject matter presents research
problems of a kind that natural scientists rarely
have to deal with. The sociologist's subjects are not
inanimate objects or unreflecting animals. They are
people who are self-aware, who have complex individual
personalities, and who are capable of choosing their
own courses of action for both rational and irrational
reasons.

All sociologists recognise these problems, but not all
are agreed on how to deal with them.
Some favour "quantitative" methods; they focus on
refining statistical and mathematical techniques.
Others favour "qualitative" methods; they rely on their
own subjective descriptions and interpetations of
behaviour, even when these may be difficult for others
to verify. They concede that some precision is lost
by their method, but they claim that it provided more
insights, a better "feel" for the texture of social life.

Debate between the more zealous advocates of each approach
has at times become heated.

I believe there is a valid place for both approaches.

<< A REAL economist will tell you that GDP, measured by statisticians as rising - will not necessarily translate to the experience of people. >>

Absolutely Poirot.

That’s a great quote by Schumacher. It resonates enormously with the Rolf Harris thread, where many people would consider anything, no matter how minor, that could possibly fall under the banner of pedophilia, to be utterly condemnable, end of story, despite the fact that Rolf’s actions were indeed very minor indeed when one looks at the full spectrum of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching offences.

‘Uneconomic’, ‘pedophilic’, No doubt we could come up with a few other such terms which can just stifle sensible debate straight away, and send some people off into the realms of vicious personal attacks on those who dare to even try to debate such things in a sensible and level-headed manner!

Now, if we really want to applaud the feminist movement and uphold the much greater equality for women that has been achieved over the last ?three decades, then we should be looking very closely at what is good for our whole society.

And the most fundamental thing in this regard is to get the bejeezus away from our crazy worship of continuous growth and start embracing the OPPOSITE to it, which is a sustainable society.

Dear Foxy, I still await your responses.

As for child support, I missed out entirely, as a male before the current program began I got nowhere, and was even threatened with the removal of my children if I made a fuss about that.
The ex' was an accountant and everything she earned and owned was ignored. Unlike the single mums I knew who had their ex's chased down and investigated I was told to find her myself, prove she was earning, and how much, take her to court myself and then IF, repeat IF, I won there the Gov' dpt MIGHT refund me SOME of the costs, but wouldn't attempt to enforce any court rulings themselves, that too was down to me and the civil courts.
Admittedly, this was in the 1980's and things have changed for the better since then, I'm very glad to say.

Let me assure you Poirot, you don't have to fear me ever addressing you as sweetie.

You see I reserve such terms for very special people.

While I can think of many adjectives that suit people such as yourself, sweet is about as far away as it is possible to get. Obviously I will not use any of them, as it would be sure to get me suspended, or probably banned.

You wouldn't be Julia would you? I sometimes wonder.

Hasbeen seems to be constantly giving Foxy some 'special' attention with all his patronizing endearments.....is there something else going on there Hasbeen?

G'dayBruce feels humble in his own presence as he extols his many single parenting virtues.
There are far more single mothers around than fathers, and many have done just as good a job with their kids as you say you have.
Just what are you trying to prove?

While single mothers and their kids are pilloried by mainly male observers as being the scourge on our society, GdayBruce seems to think single fathers are some sort of saints.
There are good and bad parents in all different sorts of families.
Gender has nothing to do with that fact.

"That’s a great quote by Schumacher. It resonates enormously with the Rolf Harris thread, where many people would consider anything, no matter how minor, that could possibly fall under the banner of pedophilia, to be utterly condemnable, end of story, despite the fact that Rolf’s actions were indeed very minor indeed when one looks at the full spectrum of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching offences.

‘Uneconomic’, ‘pedophilic’, No doubt we could come up with a few other such terms which can just stifle sensible debate straight away, and send some people off into the realms of vicious personal attacks on those who dare to even try to debate such things in a sensible and level-headed manner!"

Go take a funny run, Ludwig...and confine your whinging about your Rolfy thread to your Rolfy thread.

(Where you have failed to post any of my (fictitious) abusive posts - even though I've asked for proof numerous times)