Flippancy='inappropriate levity' as in the amusing but really
irrelevant Royal Family analogy. It rather reminded me of Richard
Dawkins flippant comparision of a belief in Father Christmas and the
belief in Jesus Christ. Ridicule is not yet an accepted form of
academic debate is it?
Paul Ashton
[log in to unmask]
2006-12-13
>Sorry, but I must have missed something. What is 'flippant' about making the point that it is poverty, not family breakdown per se, that leads to poor outcomes?? Or was I the only one listening to Duncan-Smith and feeling like I was trapped in a time warp and listening to Charles Murray again....
>
>Kirstein
>
>
>--
>Dr Kirstein Rummery,
>Senior Lecturer in Social Policy,
>Politics, School of Social Sciences,
>Dover Street, University of Manchester,
>M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
>Tel: 0161 275 4877 FAx: 0161 275 4925
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/politics/about/staff_profiles/Kirstein_Rummery.htm
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy
>> specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of Paul Ashton
>> Sent: 13 December 2006 11:33
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Families 'key to poverty fight'
>>
>> For those who want a rather less amusing or flippant analysis
>> of the Tories' Social Justice Policy Group report on
>> Breakdown Britain than that provided by John Veit-Wilson, the
>> 100+ page study can be had at:
>> http://povertydebate.typepad.com/home/files/csj_final_2.pdf
>>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
|