|
This guy has to be a UKMT'er http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30299600
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:40 |
|
|
Heh, loving the "poor people are uneducated about food" bullshit. That can be the case, but in my experience when I had a rather thankless job (of being a chef, no less) that you generally feel so lovely, tired and run-down after working your rear end off in a thankless job that you tend to gravitate towards convenience foods because, let's face it, cooking a decent meal can be a chore. This tends to be a vicious circle, but I think stuff like Jamie's 15 minute meals have no real value as a means of educating people about 'proper food' but do have value in showing people how to make quick meals that don't take a lot of effort. It's also why I love Jack Monroe. She managed to make good, quick meals using value ranges from supermarkets. You can tart it up, but the worst foods we have these days are still vastly, vastly better in quality and nutrition than the food humanity has had for most of its existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:There's a general disregard towards health in poorer families, eating junk food, smoking and drinking while pregnant, etc, due to lack of education. If you're pregnant, the benefits of breast feeding are made pretty damned clear to you whenever you go the hospital, the doctors, or when a health visitor comes round. But I imagine it's pretty easy to be pregnant 'off the radar', and to bypass all of that and miss out on where most of that info comes from. Is this a real post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
No, it's an accepted fact in multiple countries that when health education fails to reach people, those people tend to develop health issues. Who knew?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
I think we should sterilise stupid people who don't have necessary resources to bring up a child. I know it's a bit fascist or whatever. But it would work I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
Bape Culture posted:I think we should sterilise stupid people who don't have necessary resources to bring up a child. I know it's a bit fascist or whatever. But it would work I think. Dad please don't post here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:But I imagine it's pretty easy to be pregnant 'off the radar', and to bypass all of that and miss out on where most of that info comes from. Only if you opt out of the healthcare system entirely and I can't see how easy that would be easy at all. You could, however, ignore the information and advice that's freely available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yeah, but problems tend to emerge when private businesses take issue with it on their premises. The inside of a shop or a pub or whatever isn't public, so the owners have a lot of scope to enforce rules as they see fit. A cafe or pub is a public place and a woman's right to breastfeed there is protected by law under the Equality Act 2010. They can no more prevent a woman breastfeeding than they can allow somebody to smoke. If they don't want women to breastfeed on their premises the only compromise available is for them to close the business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Only if you opt out of the healthcare system entirely and I can't see how easy that would be easy at all. How hard do you think it is to just not tell anyone you're pregnant? If you don't have any problems, you could easily avoid the hospital and all it's free info until the contractions start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:How hard do you think it is to just not tell anyone you're pregnant? If you don't have any problems, you could easily avoid the hospital and all it's free info until the contractions start. And you think being pregnant for nine months without any support and nobody knowing is 'easy'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:How hard do you think it is to just not tell anyone you're pregnant? If you don't have any problems, you could easily avoid the hospital and all it's free info until the contractions start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:There's a general disregard towards health in poorer families, eating junk food, smoking and drinking while pregnant, etc, due to lack of education. If you're pregnant, the benefits of breast feeding are made pretty damned clear to you whenever you go the hospital, the doctors, or when a health visitor comes round. But I imagine it's pretty easy to be pregnant 'off the radar', and to bypass all of that and miss out on where most of that info comes from. *but not all
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
Rich women breastfeeding are feeling the pinch since historically they didn't stoop to such levels and got a poor to do it for them, thus saving them the burden of breastfeeding and denying another baby it at the same time. Win win!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I'm fairly sure that a great deal* of the benefits from breastfeeding have never been conclusively disentangled from the confounding effects that come from the fact that breastfeeding is more common among rich and educated mothers, who tend to have all kinds of better outcomes for other reasons. Well, a control group is easily available: just compare rich breastfeeding mothers and rich non breastfeeding mothers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Ddraig posted:and denying another baby it at the same time. I thought wet nurses just kept their milk flowing by continuing to feed babies even when their own had been weaned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Historically that would have been true but in the good old Victorian days a wet nurse would probably give up their illegitimate child in order to become a wet nurse because it was a better life to breastfeed rich women's children than raise your own in poverty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Bape Culture posted:I think we should sterilise stupid people who don't have necessary resources to bring up a child. I know it's a bit fascist or whatever. But it would work I think. EvilGenius posted:There's a general disregard towards health in poorer families, eating junk food, smoking and drinking while pregnant, etc, due to lack of education. Thomas Ligotti posted:As a survival-happy species, our successes are calculated in the number of years we have extended our lives, with the reduction of suffering being only incidental to this aim. To stay alive under almost any circumstances is a sickness with us. Nothing could be more unhealthy than to "watch one’s health" as a means of stalling death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Poor people should suffer their lot gracefully as their suffering is clearly punishment for the sin of their sloth. Any fleeting pleasure they may have should not be allowed. Subsistence level welfare, if allowed, should be spent solely on keeping them around so if they should be needed they will not be lying in the gutter smacked out or in hospital with lung cancer. Smoking, drinking, pleasure from food and other simple treats are anathema.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
But we're discussing the effects choices made by parents have on the health of their children, not their own. Is such recklessness understandable or acceptable when their decisions harm those who aren't in a position to make them for themselves? Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Historically that would have been true but in the good old Victorian days a wet nurse would probably give up their illegitimate child in order to become a wet nurse because it was a better life to breastfeed rich women's children than raise your own in poverty. How did you get the vision statement for the Big Society?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:But we're discussing the effects choices made by parents have on the health of their children, not their own. If living under Austerity has taught us anything is that responsibility can always be deferred and that suffering for suffering's sake is always acceptable, provided it's happening to the right people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:If living under Austerity has taught us anything is that responsibility can always be deferred and that suffering for suffering's sake is always acceptable, provided it's happening to the right people. A good article by Zoe Williams today on this topic points out that responsibility is privatised. Zoe Williams posted:The modern conversation about parenting turns the healthy baby, and healthy child, into the proof of the parents’ excellent life choices. By turning it into a matter of the self, predominantly the maternal self, to create the successful or unsuccessful child, we let society completely off the hook. There is no broad responsibility to create a healthy environment for children (because mothers who were concerned would live in some other environment), and no social imperative to look after children who were born in ill-health or some other misfortune (because mothers who behaved responsibly would have prevented this outcome). I wonder if this has anything to do with the establishment's need to deflect blame for the consequences of wrecking all public services.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Gilganixon posted:A good article by Zoe Williams today on this topic points out that responsibility is privatised. Well they'll eventually boil it down to, "Look how poo poo everything is, don't worry we sold it all to Halliburton, they run the country now,"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
I agree. We should send them all back where they came from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
New Labour get poo poo upon for Spin yet we're currently regressing to Victorian level ideals to the point where workhouses for disabled people were genuinely considered (and actually implemented for unemployed) and were told We're All In This Together when it's clear some are more in it than others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
I like it, but it should really be "Bum the Poopy".
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
Another value immigrants have is that they already exist, so it's essentially recycling compared to the wholesale depleting of natural resources another baby will create.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
What does bum the poppy even mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
If you bum a fag you're either taking a cigarette or not invited to most B&Bs Maybe bumming a poppy is reappropriating it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
It was from some Britain First macro someone posted last thread (?) about poppy burning muslamics, but they used terrible kerning so it said 'bum the poppy'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Jippa posted:What does bum the poppy even mean? Look at this scrub who doesn't take regular heroin suppositories. You can't call yourself a proper Marxist if you don't indulge in the opiate of the asses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I'm fairly sure that a great deal* of the benefits from breastfeeding have never been conclusively disentangled from the confounding effects that come from the fact that breastfeeding is more common among rich and educated mothers, who tend to have all kinds of better outcomes for other reasons. Stomach problems basically, bottle fed children are more prone to gastrointestinal issues which makes sense as bottle feeding adds in factors like incorrectly mixed formula, milk stored at the wrong temperature, allergies etc. Also the person that said it sounded like smug middle class paternalism or something (on my phone so can't check) - that's probably a large part of it too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:but they used terrible kerning so it said 'bum the poppy'. I think you meant to say "terrible keming", or at least "terrible k e rn i n g" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Historically that would have been true but in the good old Victorian days a wet nurse would probably give up their illegitimate child in order to become a wet nurse because it was a better life to breastfeed rich women's children than raise your own in poverty. If by "give up" you mean "bury", yes. Most wet nurses had lost their child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
There was illegitimate children who couldn't be brought up by the parent aswell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Ah I see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
People like to put the Victorians up on some sort of pedestal but they were loving nuts. People look back at the Roman empire and some of the batshit crazy things about them and think "Yes, they were all hosed up" but you don't even have to go that far back into history to see some truly mental things. Baby farms are my particular favorite thing about how hosed up Victorians were. Basically you would have women that would be paid to take away unwanted babies and wet nurse them and give them 'a standard of care' and basically try and make them into productive members of society. In theory. In practice this wasn't the case. Maybe in this Big Society we live in some industrious women could come up with a similar idea. Maybe Neo-liberals and their worship of the free market will eventually get us there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:People like to put the Victorians up on some sort of pedestal but they were loving nuts. People look back at the Roman empire and some of the batshit crazy things about them and think "Yes, they were all hosed up" but you don't even have to go that far back into history to see some truly mental things. But remember Baby Farms were almost universally condemned as effectively an elaborate form of infanticide. Only the very poor and desperate used them, and I'm pretty sure they were fairly quickly legislated against once their deadly nature was proved. I don't think they were ever a truly 'accepted' part of society, and were definitely looked at with disdain by almost all of the chattering classes (as untoward) and a large portion of the normal working classes (as irresponsible and representative of women shirking their motherley duties). But yes in a million other ways the Victorians were nuts. I'm still baffled at how they got away with pressing drunks into the navy with the king's shilling. I mean, 19th Century Britain was a bizarre place but they did have a functional legal system and how was that in any way legal? I'm willing to bet it never happened to a gentleman, and only ever piss-poor dockhands or whatever. I wonder if a more refined type was ever pressganged by accident? Would that not cause a mountain of poo poo? That's a good idea for a film, actually. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:40 |
|
|
The Victorians were completely loving batshit insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:35
|
|
