When someone is so utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong that it seems just ridiculous, what to do?
Is ridicule helpful?
I've done it many times. I have mocked, teased, and otherwise tried to ridicule people who I think are clinging stubbornly to a belief or an argument that has been thoroughly refuted. So while this might sound preachy I do think that I probably need the sermon as well.
I'm going to say no. What's left at that point is either trying another angle on reasoned discussion, or just dropping it. Just posting ridicule helps nothing.
Of course there are degrees. I'm not likely to jump all over someone who bemusedly notes some irony. I might not even notice it, particularly - and it's sometimes a relatively benign exit from a conversation (but not normally a good way to make sure the conversation progresses).
But sometimes I notice that when a certain critical mass of like-minded posters have lined up against the person they agree is wrong, there seems to be a temptation to deliver the written equivalent of a spitwad to the back of the head. Rather than repeat or extend or endorse the arguments against the person, which might at least serve as a sort of record of group opinion, this is more like "you suck and I'm laughing at you because you suck."
I intend to try to avoid this more than I have in the past.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Whenever possible, if I'm not already involved in a thread by the time it reaches ridiculing someone, I simply avoid posting in it. See the current thread on Kent Hovind and the reaction to Ron's posts, for example. I've read most of it, but there's absolutely nothing constructive I could contribute to it. It's the old "if you can't think of anything nice to say..." adage.
In fact, I've yet to see an internet discussion on God, Christianity, or Creationism end well. Ever. I try and avoid threads dealing with them entirely.
If I'm already involved in a thread, then it's more tempting. But again, I really dislike arguing with someone until they reach the point where ridicule is the only response - I typically back down or leave when reason is substituted with repeated assertions. But I have mocked people before, and the memory makes me feel somewhat ashamed.
IMO, the biggest problem I see with this is all the people who hop on the bandwagon after it reaches that point who weren't involved in the main debate. Specifically in the Kent Hovind thread, by the time I stopped reading at the end of page 2, I noticed at least one person who joined the discussion only to make mean spirited, personal attacks against Ron after others had done the brunt work of making actual arguments. It brings to mind thoughts of vultures circling, and seems rather sad and cowardly to me.
I think if the person making the false assertion is dead earnest and isn't being an asshole about it, the best response is just to ignore it and move on. Mocking will just reaffirm that people of the opposite opinion really are petty and nasty, and do nothing but strengthen the false belief.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:In fact, I've yet to see an internet discussion on God, Christianity, or Creationism end well. Ever.
ahhhhh...I remember better days. And it was exactly those types of reasons that kept me at Hatrack.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In fact, I've yet to see an internet discussion on God, Christianity, or Creationism end well. Ever.
That's depressing. I'm part of them all the time, still.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: In fact, I've yet to see an internet discussion on God, Christianity, or Creationism end well. Ever.
quote:When someone is so utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong that it seems just ridiculous, what to do?
When that happens, I think you should consider the possibility that they are right.
This happens all too frequently: Person X is convinced that Person Y is utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong. Yet, in the end, Person X is the one who is wrong, and becomes so wrapped up in trying to prove Person Y wrong that he or she fails to see a flaw in his or her own position. It's always the other person who seems stubborn and obviously wrong. Even more interestingly, often both Person X and Person Y think this about eachother at the same time. In those cases, at least one of the two must be mistaken about which of the two is "clearly" wrong in their position. Sometimes both are mistaken.
Ultimately, there are two reasons why a person may seem utterly, stubbornly, or obviously wrong... (1) There is something they fail to see which makes them wrong. (2) There is something you fail to see which makes them appear wrong when they aren't. In case 1, you can try helping them see what they fail to see, but if they still can't or refuse to see it then you are stuck. That's up to them. In case 2, you can always choose to try and see what you have failed to see before. So, given you never truly know whether it is (1) or (2), if trying to solve case 1 fails completely, you might as well focus on case 2.
Ridicule wouldn't really help in either case.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: ... Is ridicule helpful? ... I'm going to say no. What's left at that point is either trying another angle on reasoned discussion, or just dropping it. Just posting ridicule helps nothing.
Well, it is rare that it helps the argument or the other person. But it could bring comedy to you and like-minded individuals (and I say "could" because it depends on the skill and detachment of the person involved).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have often thought that the world would be much improved if there were some way to deliver a hearty, physical slap upside the head over the Internet. Of course this would not change anyone's mind, any more than it does off the net, but the possibility would force people to be much more polite, and probably segregate the drooling idiots even more than happens now, or else make them keep their opinions to themselves. I feel fairly convinced that the lack of religious debates off the internet is due largely to the possibility of physical violence; when people feel strongly but have no actual arguments to make, they can either agree to shut up, fight it out, or be physically separated. The Internet has the unfortunate side effect of enforcing the last solution without ending debate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:When someone is so utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong that it seems just ridiculous, what to do?
When that happens, I think you should consider the possibility that they are right.
You would love that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately no, that runs completely counter to human nature. Life is not an episode of Star Trek.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
When that happens, I consider the possibility, walk through my reasoning again, and when I find it's steady, I still think they are wrong.
It's happened a lot to me more recently.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Eh. Some people are into moral relativity. Tresopax is into factual relativity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I know, it's so utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong that it just seems ridiculous and I don't know what to d-.......
Oh... my... god...
HE'S RIGHT!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Resist, guys. Resist.
I like to think that I'm a halfway reasonable person. I do have enough empathy that I frequently go through the whole, "Well, if I thought 'x'..." exercise. The problem is that if the exercise leads to recognizing that "thinking 'x'" involves a willful disregard of a,b,c, and delta through sigma, my mind forcefully ejects the empathy exercise for fear that goo will pour out of my ears and I will commence drooling.
It's perfectly reasonable to hold onto one's beliefs firmly enough that one isn't swayed by the first wind blowing opposite. But when one shuts out all data that might lend one to change that belief, others are perfectly validated in recognizing that continuing to offer such arguments is a waste of time and energy. It's a bit like recognizing that while everyone else is trying to play tennis, one person is determined to play football. You can only be tackled so many times while trying to serve before you begin to feel a strong desire to move the offender to the bathroom so he can continue to practice blocking on the hand dryer while everyone else gets on with tennis.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I have often thought that the world would be much improved if there were some way to deliver a hearty, physical slap upside the head over the Internet. Of course this would not change anyone's mind, any more than it does off the net, but the possibility would force people to be much more polite, and probably segregate the drooling idiots even more than happens now, or else make them keep their opinions to themselves. I feel fairly convinced that the lack of religious debates off the internet is due largely to the possibility of physical violence; when people feel strongly but have no actual arguments to make, they can either agree to shut up, fight it out, or be physically separated. The Internet has the unfortunate side effect of enforcing the last solution without ending debate.
I imagine that trolls would be much more annoying (and effective) as a side effect.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think so; trolls are generally rather badly outnumbered. There's a reason we don't see RL trolls going about hitting people willy-nilly, effective as it would be in getting attention. Well, not outside kindergarten, anyway. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I imagine that trolls would be much more annoying (and effective) as a side effect.
One person with a thick football helmet could just sit there and chase entire communities off.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Eh. Some people are into moral relativity. Tresopax is into factual relativity.
I'm not anywhere near believing factual relativity. If factual relativism were true then I'd never have to bother considering the possibility I might be wrong.
I am into human fallibility though - meaning "people often think they are clearly, overwhelmingly, absolutely right when they aren't." And not just other people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You never *do* consider the possibility that you are wrong- you just consider the possibilities that all other people might be wrong equally. Which is really annoying when you're talking about one case that is very sound, and one that isn't. If you don't notice yourself doing this, please, pay closer attention.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I stumbled upon this this week. Thought it applied:
quote:You never *do* consider the possibility that you are wrong- you just consider the possibilities that all other people might be wrong equally. Which is really annoying when you're talking about one case that is very sound, and one that isn't. If you don't notice yourself doing this, please, pay closer attention.
I typically consider the possibility that I am wrong. I'm doing it right now even - what leads you to believe otherwise?
And also no, I don't consider the possibility that other people might be wrong equally. Typically I consider the possibility than an argument is wrong much more carefully for seemingly sound arguments, since there is not really that much need to find futher wrongness in an argument that you already recognize as unsound.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ah yes, Hatrack. The same old people arguing the same old things with the same old enemies. Gotta love it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Typically I consider the possibility than an argument is wrong much more carefully for seemingly sound arguments, since there is not really that much need to find futher wrongness in an argument that you already recognize as unsound.
But what you were encouraging people to do was to consider that an argument they originally recognized as unsound, might be valid.
That's the difficulty. When we aren't just talking about issues of opinion, there are certain kinds of arguments that are clearly recognizable as flawed. What do you do when you explain this flaw to your opponent a dozen different ways and they just keep replying with the same argument without even addressing the flaw you've explained? At some point the situation becomes ridiculous and point that out seems like the most logical response.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Ah yes, Hatrack. The same old people arguing the same old things with the same old enemies. Gotta love it.
Who are you?
Do you want to be my enemy? I don't have one yet, but I'm accepting applications.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You could just compromise your strong beliefs and pretend to be a moderate....that would make you popular for being objective. Take solace in the fact that time will either prove you wrong or right. Watching the facts unfold in time is the ultimate arbiter of any debate. Unfortunately, history is malleable and the present is often spin.
[ December 17, 2009, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do you want to be my enemy? I don't have one yet, but I'm accepting applications.
Based on what criteria?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Unfortunately, history is malleable and the present is often spin.
Uhuh. You know the person I trust the least in the neighborhood? The guy with shutters on all his windows and a big nasty dog in the yard. You're that guy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You could just compromise your strong beliefs and pretend to be a moderate....that would make you popular for being objective.
quote:objective
you keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do you want to be my enemy? I don't have one yet, but I'm accepting applications.
Based on what criteria?
Well I can't speak for Dogbreath, but I require all my enemies be lovable, its sort of a requirement of my religion.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Ah yes, Hatrack. The same old people arguing the same old things with the same old enemies. Gotta love it.
Who are you?
Do you want to be my enemy? I don't have one yet, but I'm accepting applications.
I'll be your enemy! I've always wanted an enemy. Actually, what I'd really like is an arch-nemesis.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Oooooo, an arch-nemesis. I want an arch-nemesis.
Plus my religion does say anything specific about loving your arch-nemesis. I think I've found a loop hole.
But, of course, an arch-nemesis would have to be a match for my brilliance, so I'm not accepting just anyone for the position.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Paging Mr. Potato-Head...
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Unfortunately, history is malleable and the present is often spin.
Uhuh. You know the person I trust the least in the neighborhood? The guy with shutters on all his windows and a big nasty dog in the yard. You're that guy.
You forgot the arsenal I have in my house.
Really, in my neighborhood I'm Mr. Fixit. Whenever anyone in a one block radius needs something, they knock on my door. I've replaced transmissions in the driveway for the elderly, given money to out of work neighbors and spent hours repairing computers...for free. Of course, progressives would argue the wealthy should be taxed for such things.
Progressive policies destroy charity and the individual work ethic. I suppose the current administration reduced the tax deduction for charitable contributions out of care for the needy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'll be your enemy! I've always wanted an enemy. Actually, what I'd really like is an arch-nemesis.
Awesome! I've never been an arch-nemesis before either, but I'll do my best to trip you up in my dastardly plots.
The job is pretty simple, if time consuming. Basically you need to vociferously oppose every single thing I say, and take advantage of any opportunity to express your thorough and undying hatred of my being. I realize this might be difficult when we agree with each other on a given point - in that case, simply try and make me look as much like an idiot as possible. As if my being on your side does the cause more harm than good.
I'll do the same for you of course.
You can have Tuesdays and mornings off.
Rabbit: Would you like to be a henchwoman? Or maybe a mad scientist? I am very lovable. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Having an Arch-Nemesis gives meaning to many lives. Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Progressive policies destroy charity and the individual work ethic.
Even if it did, the progressive policies would still provide a greater benefit to the needy and be better for the overall quality of life of the citizens of the country.
And it also doesn't really do what you claim, so it is win-win.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Prove to me the welfare policies of the United States have elevated the poor in the US over the past 40 years. Do you see pictures of Aushwitz style starving from the great depression? Prior to progressive compassion, were there inner city projects? What was the gang rate in 1950? Gangs kill more minorities every year than the KKK ever did.
This isn't purely racial...my mothers family is the epitome of white trash. I remember my slutty 15 year old cousin fighting with her mother about wanting to be grown up. To her, being grown up was getting pregnant, getting a government subsidised apartment, welfare check and foodstamps. By 16, she met her goal. She had a baby and a place of her own. She received the compassionate benefits of our society. Where did she learn what it was to be an adult? Her parent/parents didn't grow up and get a job and pay for anything. She knew that she could have an equal lifestyle to her mothers and be a free adult just for spreading her legs. Other kids realize their dad has a college degree.....life is relative. People in the projects of America are wealthy compared to half the world's population. The problem is, the one's living in the projects hate the one's living in the suburbs. (despite the fact they are paying for them)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
[qipte]Do you see pictures of Auschwitz style starving from the great depression? [/quote]
Well no; how many such pictures do you see of today's poor, who are rather more likely to be obese? The relevant comparison is the death rate, and I assure you that it jumped during the Depression; cold, disease, suicide. Why even bring up Auschwitz?
quote:Prior to progressive compassion, were there inner city projects?
Projects, no. Slums, yes. Have you read "Psmith Journalist"? It's quite a good book on its own merits, but pay attention to the description of the slums. Wodehouse was by no means exaggerating.
quote:What was the gang rate in 1950?
What was the murder rate in 1920? You might be surprised. And the 1950s are a bad point for you to cherry-pick anyway, since it could easily be taken to show the merits of the New Deal.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Thank you for helping me prove my point. Today, to be poor is to be obese....wow. The poorest in our nation are the fattest in the world. The poorest in other nations are starving while the poorest in ours are fat. We sure are oppressing our poor and the evil rich capitalist American should pay for the oppressed poor obese American's insulin. Afterall, they're fat because they're oppressed????
The African kid would work all day for a bag of wheat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Thank you for helping me prove my point. Today, to be poor is to be obese....wow.
In any postindustrial nation, procurement of food is among the lowest budgetary concerns relative to other economic pressures due to its ready availability. The problem is that the cheapest available food is not very healthy and encourages obesity.
So it doesn't prove your point at all — assuming you even had one worth considering — because it just shows that you don't understand that poverty is a different issue between high income nations and low income nations.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Don't play the imbecile, please mal- you wear it too well. If you don't realize the implications of the obesity trend among minority and low income people, it can be explained to you. In brief, the growing availability and intensified marketing of high calorie food of low quality or nutritional value represents an exploitative relationship between the American consumer base, and the American Big Food industry, specifically Phillip Morris, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Tyson Foods, and their various subsidiaries, partners and parent companies (I am not quite sure how the corporate structures fit together).
Big Food companies spend large amounts of money on advertising in low income communities for foods that are cheap and of low quality, and the increased availability and marketing of these processed products has encroached upon the market for foods of higher quality. At the same time, Big Food companies also lobby in Washington, and acquire positions for their own consultants on committees such as in the American Heart Association and the FDA, and work to lower or eliminate standards for school food consumption and proper labeling of products, as well as consumer warnings and public education on food consumption. They do these things in order to sell large amounts of high calorie, low quality food to poor people. It's obviously not terribly complicated.
It is also not a great leap or an extremely liberal position to take, to say that Big Food in America exerts a great amount of pressure on the poor to consume unhealthy food in unhealthy portions. By working to cut off education, access to alternatives, and important information about their own products, the food industry does indeed exploit and, in a certain manner, oppress the poor through economic and political pressure.
In many ways the food industry of today has a similar relationship to the poor that the manufacturing industry had at the turn of the 20th century. It is no accident at all that Eric Schlosser and other documentarians of the food industry often invoke The Jungle in their writings about the food industry of today. The total lack of concern for the welfare of consumers leads big food in America to pursue a corporate strategy that endangers the welfare of the entire nation. Literally, mal, the food industry sells an insipid form of poison to the consumer base, in the pursuit of higher profit margins- they learned how to do it from Big Tobacco, and in fact many of the players are the same.
These facts do not require that you believe in them Mal, nor that my particular interpretation fits your Calvinist moralizing. The trends are quite clear, and the negative impacts of those trends are being felt in American health care, education, and national productivity today.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Prove to me the welfare policies of the United States have elevated the poor in the US over the past 40 years.
Prove to me that they haven't. And do it without relying on anecdotal evidence.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The problem is, the one's living in the projects hate the one's living in the suburbs. (despite the fact they are paying for them)
I think you need to start examining the deeply ingrained insecurities that you have about your position in life relative to others, and start healing the resentment you feel towards the people who clearly hurt you early on in your life. One thing that stands out in much of what you've said on this forum is the need that your personal accomplishments be recognized, and that you personally be acquitted of the stain of your birth into poverty. Interestingly, your circumstances haven't provided you with the slightest degree of compassion for anyone. You hate the rich as much as you do the poor, and it's painfully clear from the way you talk to those who received what you have had to work for, whom you cast in much the same light as those who have less, and have not achieved the level of success that you have. Comments that you have made to me and others, implicit accusations of an overly privileged life, reveal that insecurity. But anyone here with even a little more experience with me knows that I am not terribly insecure about my privileged life. I embrace the circumstances that have given me things I know not everyone has or can have, no matter how hard they work. Not everyone can be born into a life like mine, and I am happy that I was, as much as I wish that others could be.
But you mal. I think you hate the circumstances of your life- certainly you speak of your family with anger and derision. Yet none of that has imbued you with the slightest bit of compassion. Why *do* you give to charity so generously as you claim to? If those claims are not lies, why do you look upon the poor as unworthy of your concern, and yet look upon your charity as a sign of your piety and superiority over them? Why, I wonder, do you insist that only two mentalities exist- either victimhood, or moral superiority? This cognitive dissonance causes you to say some of the most shockingly callous things. I wonder if you realize how it looks to others.
[ December 22, 2009, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'll be your enemy! I've always wanted an enemy. Actually, what I'd really like is an arch-nemesis.
Awesome! I've never been an arch-nemesis before either, but I'll do my best to trip you up in my dastardly plots.
The job is pretty simple, if time consuming. Basically you need to vociferously oppose every single thing I say, and take advantage of any opportunity to express your thorough and undying hatred of my being. I realize this might be difficult when we agree with each other on a given point - in that case, simply try and make me look as much like an idiot as possible. As if my being on your side does the cause more harm than good.
I'll do the same for you of course.
You can have Tuesdays and mornings off.
Rabbit: Would you like to be a henchwoman? Or maybe a mad scientist? I am very lovable.
Luckily, today is Tuesday, so I don't have to get started until tomorrow.
Say, do I get holidays, too?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years. Thanksgiving and Independence Day if you're an American (I think you are), or 2 other culturally appropriate holidays if not.
Our first day of enemyship starts tomorrow. I'm pretty excited.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years. Thanksgiving and Independence Day if you're an American (I think you are), or 2 other culturally appropriate holidays if not.
Our first day of enemyship starts tomorrow. I'm pretty excited.
What? No dental?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm your rival, it's my business to hope all your rotten teeth abscess and cause you endless amounts of pain. I mean that in the nicest way, of course. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
You will hope in vain, then, because my teeth are the sort that don't rot if I try. Good genes, I think.
BWAHAHA
Hmmm...I'm going to have to work on my evil laugh.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
So you're blaming the marketing? Maybe we should limit free speech. Afterall, cooking food from home, from scratch is not only cheaper, it's healthier.
I came from a poor family...hot dogs were a special treat reserved for barbeque days and holidays. Hot dogs and Kraft prepackaged foods were a special treat. Prepackaged garbage is not the cheapest...the poorest should avoid it. Unless of course they're too lazy to cook a loaf of bread or spend two hours cooking beans. The healthiest foods are the cheapest and the unemployed welfare mother has nothing better to do than cook a healthy cheap meal for her family. Of course, microwaving a McNugget only takes 30 seconds...cooking a frozen ground turkey casserole requires work.
[ December 23, 2009, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: So you're blaming the marketing? Maybe we should limit free speech. Afterall, cooking food from home, from scratch is not only cheaper, it's healthier.
I came from a poor family...hot dogs were a special treat for barbeque days. Hot dogs and Kraft prepackaged foods were a special treat. Prepackaged garbage is not the cheapest...the poorest should avoid it. Unless of course they're too lazy to cook a loaf of bread or spend two hours cooking beans. The healthiest foods are the cheapest and the unemployed welfare mother has nothing better to do than cook a healthy cheap meal for her family. Of course, microwaving a McNugget only takes 30 seconds...cooking a frozen ground turkey casserole requires work.
I think it depends on education quite a bit.
I too grew up in a poor family, but country poor, not city poor. And poor mostly because there were 8 of us kids. My mom would buy several 50 lb bags of wheat every year from a local farmer, grind it herself and bake 5 loaves of bread a week. She and my dad also had a 1 acre vegetable garden, and my dad had a wealthy associate who was also a cow farmer give him half a cow every year. (which we stored in a freezer in the basement) My mom and my sisters (and myself, when I was old enough) would cook dinner every night, eat oatmeal or cream of wheat or cereal every morning, and a sandwich (pbj or egg salad) and a salad every afternoon. We'd recycle (because they pay you per pound in Minnesota), reuse every Ziploc bag about 5 times, put in storm windows, and do about everything possible to save money. And we got along all right.
But the thing is, both my parents have a college education, and they'd spend a good chunk of time every week planning and budgeting to make sure we'd come out on top. My mom would shop at bulk stores and was a coupon ninja.
A lot of poor folks (especially in the city) simply don't have those skills. It's not that they're too lazy to budget or cook, it's that they don't even know *how* to budget or cook. They've never had a meaningful relationship with someone who was responsible with their money. And you seem so resentful and condescending of these people who are, frankly, having their ignorance exploited, no, encouraged by predatory corporations. And not just as far as food goes, either. The banks and credit card companies are far from innocent in this too.
I personally believe the single most powerful solution to poverty is education. It doesn't just increase wealth, it reduces waste. A well educated person's dollar goes 3 or 4 times as far as an ignorant person's. Your solution seems to be ridiculing people for being uneducated and telling them to stop being lazy, which in my experience will only engender a greater distrust for education.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My family comes from White Earth...I still get bags of wild rice in the mail for Christmas. The education when it come to food is passed down by parents. You and I were poor yet were fed well and succeeded...we had good parents. It is unfortunate that some daughters learn how to cook by pressing "1" then "enter". It is unfortunate that some boys don't even have a father to teach them anything about being a man and father.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: My family comes from White Earth...I still get bags of wild rice in the mail for Christmas.
Same here! My family is from Little Falls (well, Randall technically), it's about 2 hours se of White Earth.
quote:The education when it come to food is passed down by parents. You and I were poor yet were fed well and succeeded...we had good parents. It is unfortunate that some daughters learn how to cook by pressing "1" then "enter". It is unfortunate that some boys don't even have a father to teach them anything about being a man and father.
I think that's the point I've been trying to make - we're successful because our parents taught us the skills we need to survive. Sure you're smart, hardworking, and moral... but the reason you're that way is because of how you were raised. I think the main goal of socialism (at least what everyone here has been trying to argue) is to give that opportunity to *everyone*, not just those privileged to have been born into the right family. Via free education, community building and leadership training, free food, housing assistance... it's all about giving people tools to build their way out of poverty, the tools that their families didn't give them. Sure there will be people who exploit that like your welfare queen cousin. But that's their loss - for every one of them, there's a successful person who wouldn't have made it without help from the government.
I'm not sure why you think that's such a bad idea.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Should the school system and government provide to all what a fraction fail to provide? Government is inescapable. Does the govt choose the Ojibwe or Lutheran lifestyle? Freedom has consequences and responsibilities. How can the government compensate for failed parents without infringing upon the rights of good parents?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It can't, that's the nature of community, government. It's very existence is an infringement on freedom.
The question is, what rights are worth giving up for the greater good? Obviously, by being a part of society, I give up my right to kill people for fun, to drive whatever speed I feel like, to run around without any clothes on (and that's a toughie), to litter anywhere, to start fires. More practically, I give up my right to a certain fraction of my income to pay for the military that protects me, the police force that enforces order, the fire department that keeps me from being burnt, the EPA that keeps others from dumping toxic sewage in my back yard, etc.
I can see the benefits of this, and I can also see the benefits of slightly less tangible sacrifices. I give up a portion of my income to put someone else's child through college, because I know this will improve my society as a whole, and I also know that kid I sent through college will earn more money, and give up some of that money to put *my* (theoretical) children through college. I give up some of my money to pay for another person's doctor visit, out of the hopes he'll live a healthier, more productive life and pay for part of my doctor's visits.
Government simply enforces that everyone does this, and that they do it fairly. If I did all of the above by donating to charities (and I do give what I can), I'd be praised for being a noble and Christ-like person. If I suggest doing the same, using the government as my means of distribution, and the officials me and 50+% of my peers have elected to enforce this agree, it's derided as communism - often by the same people who would praise me for my generosity.
I am sorry your rights are being infringed, but that's the give and take of being part of a community. I know several pacifists who seriously believe we ought to abolish most of our military - in their opinion, being taxed to pay for military spending is an infringement of their rights. Thank God the majority disagrees.
Not that I'm trying to dissuade you from arguing - I think it's vital that you express your opinion and be given the opportunity to convince as many people as you can to your way of thinking. But in my way of thinking, my right to a certain portion of my own money being infringed is well worth the benefit to society.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I agree that we should take care of the needy. Socialistic policies collapse when the money runs out. The evidence is an ever growing national debt. The congress has increased the debt limit twice this year yet propose more and more government funded mandates.
We should encourage individual responsibility over dependence. We should encourage people to work toward their selfish desires rather than demonize the successful. We are at a breaking point, past the breaking point. If we weren't past the breaking point they wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling. Congress has raised the national debt ceiling twice this year yet are demanding more government programs. This is no different than an individual who can't pay his credit card bills, asking for a credit increase while applying for another credit card.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I personally believe the single most powerful solution to poverty is education.
Stay stupid and vote for me. DC isn't a state. Washington DC is directly controlled by congress. How are they doing? Crime? Education? Employment?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: So you're blaming the marketing? Maybe we should limit free speech.
I don't know why I should bother with you at all after you decided to dismiss a fairly detailed explanation you're too lazy to deal with by mere hand-waving. Marketing = complex. Your view = simplistic. It's enough for you to believe that anything bad that ever happens to anyone is their own fault, full stop, bar the complexities of reality, and let's just ignore the details that don't line up with our pleasant assumptions, shall we.
Twit.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Washington DC is directly controlled by congress.
Is it enough for you that your statements only bear enough relation to reality that you can later explain, after being corrected, that you are still right on some terms which you will only define *after* being told that what you've said is stupid, and wrong? Moreover, do you think that people don't notice this sloppy and annoying tactic?
I mean, is it enough for you to make this overly simplified statement and bulldoze over the specifics because it makes more sense in helping you demonstrate whatever idiotic theory of yours is on display? Does Washington DC having a mayor, a district council, and various other offices not part of the federal government mean nothing in this statement? They are simply irrelevant to your point, whatever that may be? I've heard hell keeps a special little place for people who do this crap, just so you know.
You lose. One credit to continue.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I dismiss the argument that the poorest in America are the most obese. My family didn't have government paid for rent and we didn't get food stamps. Today, I make good money but my children view the "poor" food you speak of as a splurge. McDonalds is not poor people food. Stupid poor people might buy it daily but you might consider me wealthy and my children get it rarely. My wife does not work and cooks good meals for our children. The same meals she cooks are cheaper than garbage meals of poor families. My wife buys the groceries and hot dogs are an expensive meal reserved for lazy days.
Isn't red meat the most unhealthy? Red meat is also the most expensive. Due to our abundance, the poorest should be the healthiest. Our poorest are also our fattest....nothing to do with laziness. Cheap is healthy, if the cook is willing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'd sooner see that money put into public education, where it will directly benefit the children. Spending public money on private schools will increase educational standards for parents who care enough and work hard enough to put their kids in a private school. Kids without parents, or with parents who don't give a crap, will be all the more disenfranchised by money that should be going to their already underfunded schools being given to wealthy private schools.
But it's late, and I think I'm finished for the evening. The biggest problem I've seen with your political reasoning is it makes every person a success of failure based on the integrity of their parents and community. I can't even express how strongly I disagree with such a mentality.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
By "children" you mean the children of the teachers' union members, right?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I dismiss the argument that the poorest in America are the most obese.
It's not so much an argument as an assertion of actual fact. Unless you are quibbling with some semantic detail, like the nature of "the poorest" as opposed to the actual bracket of individuals falling into the bottom 30% in income, or only those under the poverty line, etc. In actual fact, obesity is a bigger health problem among the poor, in that it is first of all more prevalent, and second of all a greater drain on limited resources for people with less access to quality health care. Interestingly enough mal, studies show that obesity is also more prevalent in developed areas with a large level of economic inequality. Not a coincidence- the two things are correlated.
quote: McDonalds is not poor people food.
Ahah, ok, I see your confusion. I didn't say it was. What I said was complex and intricate and demanded some deeper thinking than you were willing to apply. The implications of what I said were this: low income areas coming under marketing pressure are more likely to buy and are more easily sold poor quality foods with high caloric content. The reason is not as simple as "McDonalds is cheaper," (because it isn't cheaper than the cheapest foods) but rather, in a low income area, especially one with a lower standard of education and a lower overall social status has less access to quality foods at decent prices that are a) healthy, and b) socially prized and popular. The reason McDonalds sells everywhere, even in this country where it is more expensive than most average quality restaurants, is that they are *smart*. They sell low quality foods for a lot more than they are worth because they can convince people to buy them. Low income areas do not have the same quality of supermarkets and small grocers, nor do those grocers have the marketing resources necessary to compete with Big Food companies who want to sell in the same areas. Since the average household food budget in the United States has decreased substantially in the past century, even the poor actually have access to *higher* quality foods than past generations. However, they also have increased access and increased social and marketing pressure to consume low quality and overpriced, yet still cheap convenience and processed foods.
So yes, McDonalds is certainly not the *cheapest* thing in most neighborhoods (though it can be in upper class areas). However, it is heavily marketed, strategically placed, and *cheap enough* to attract a larger number of low income customers than healthier, but less sexy alternatives. Middle and upper income families have access to alternatives that are both sexy, and healthy. Personal choice is an element of this process in individual cases, however the cause and effect of greater trends is undeniable. Clearly, both good and bad decisions are correlated to the environments in which they are made, meaning that people in good environments more easily make good decisions, and vice versa. Put one person in a bad environment, and it's up to them. Put a whole bunch of people in a bad environment, and a number of them will make bad decisions. Put the same number in a good environment, and a higher number will make good decisions. These trends are not moral, they have no agenda, they do not have a face or a name, but they nevertheless exist, and they have to be contended with.
Your family growing up doubtless did not face the pressures in place today, so your example, while duly noted, is not necessarily represented. It should also be noted that the statistical actuality and the relevance of those statistics to your personal experience will not necessarily be clear. I know you have a hard time believing things that are not directly in front of your face, or abstracting statistical generalizations, however, for maybe the 50th time, your willingness to accept the reality, and the actual reality, are not dependent upon each other. I feel like Stephen Crane now, and I think I feel his pain.
quote: Our poorest are also our fattest....nothing to do with laziness.
Again, you project arguments no one is making, least of all me. I made no comment on the work ethic of anyone, though of course you manage to disparage people as a group even as you deny through the other side of your mouth that they exist as a group for the purposes of *my* generalizations. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that laziness is related not only to obesity but also to poverty. It would almost certainly *have* to be related. I am of the opinion that advertisers and big businesses encourage and profit from laziness, and that they do so with a degree of consciousness of the consequences of that approach. In as much as I am far more free than you, who are bound by the mores of your conservative moralism, to examine this relationship from *both* sides, rather than from a linear case = effect position, I believe that the phenomenon of laziness and poverty and sloth and obesity is a viscous cycle of destruction, and I believe that it is fed on nearly equal parts of socialist idealism and nihilistic capitalist profiteering. That is why I am a moderate, and you are not.
[ December 24, 2009, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
So what is the answer? Tax the crap out of fast food to force the poor into a supermarket to buy a bag of flour and prepare a proper meal? Great idea, then the wealthy who can afford fast food will supplement the poor. Ban unhealthy food commercials as we have for tobacco? If we doubled the amount they were given for food stamps, they'd still buy garbage.
I can hear the the Welfare Rights organizations screaming now...."they are only given enough to buy staples and cook food from scratch."
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best...even if it doesn't solve everyone's problem. Help the needy not the lazy. Perhaps we should bring back the orphanage and take children away from parents who are unwilling to provide for their children. My family descends from a logger with a 2nd grade education and is full of adopted minorities who grew up to be successful. Grandpa might not have been educated but he was there and taught a work ethic.
[ December 25, 2009, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:sigh:
I can tell you that the answer is not your brand of moral superiority and egoism. I like that you jumped to an uber-authoritarian approach in the form of forced adoption in order to avoid the oh-so-scary idea of regulating the food industry more closely. I know you're half-jesting, but on the other hand I also know that you're half serious.
Oh but on the other hand, thank you for finally admitting that I was right, and taking the premise of my argument as a given. I know you would never admit that either, but switching the argument over to what to do about it is a tacit concession of my point. Knowing is half the battle. If pure capitalism really worked, there would be no need for any action, but sadly, your religion is centered around a false god. Sucks for you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So what is the answer? Tax the crap out of fast food to force the poor into a supermarket to buy a bag of flour and prepare a proper meal?
When someone is as reliably committed to hating everything about welfare as you do, doing this (assuming that the 'answer' is a terrible one you can strawman on their behalf) is a handy mental tool.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Often poor people (and even many middle class people) don't have the luxury of time either. Having one parent stay at home to cook meals is not always possible. Having a decent kitchen to cook in and tools to cook with, a place to store food, and a way to transport food home are also things we take for granted and that are not so easy for poor people. Try shopping without a car for a while.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try shopping without a car for a while.
I have. It is absolutely awful. I used to go into the store with a backpack, which I filled with the heaviest stuff, then I would walk home carrying two bags of groceries on each arm. If it was hot, the food didn't fare well. If it was cold, I didn't fare well.
One place I lived I could catch a bus for part of the trip, but I still walked a good quarter to half a mile carrying those bags of groceries.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It is and will always be an endless source of frustration to balance the needs of those who "deserve" help against the greed of the lazy. There is no question that both types of people exist. I think one of the best things that we as a society can do is to stop demonizing the poor as a group. Only then can we look realistically at the underlying problems and find, if not solutions, then help. There are no universal solutions, IMO. There will always be those who cannot or will not take the rope thrown to them.
I've recently returned from my usual holiday trip to the in-laws, who live in a small and poor rural town. Rural poor and urban poor are very different, it should be noted, and I am more familiar with the former. But there I see a number of cultural constraints that keep them down. There is a culture that does not believe they have any power to make real change, not even for themselves.
As far as obesity goes, there is a decided lack of knowledge about healthy eating, despite what I feel is a wealth of information out there. The diets are very meat heavy and include little to no fruits and vegetables -- when they do they are not often fresh. (In fact, I've planned all vegetarian meals for this week because I had wayyy to much fatty protein for the last 4 days.)
I'm not 100% sure why people eat that way. There seems to be a great deal of stubbornness and unwillingness to change. Perhaps this is related to the cultural attitude that they have no power anyway. I've heard a number of people insisting that eating 5-6 servings of meat a day is very healthy. (This came alongside a rather gross misinterpretation of the Atkins diet, which I also believe is very unhealthy, but another time...)
I realize that fresh fruits and vegetables are very expensive. I know I spend a great deal of money feeding that kind of food to my family, so that is definitely a part of the problem as well.
Nobody I know in that town eats at fast food restaurants very often. I don't know where McDonald's fits in...possibly lower middle class? Or maybe this is an urban poor phenomenon? I'm really not sure who eats there on a regular basis.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think the issue in reality is that welfare is used as a way of life instead of a temporary helping hand. I've known people that have been on welfare for 10+ years. I have asked them why they have been on welfare so long, and I generally get three answers.
The first is: "I wouldn't know where to start to get off of welfare."
The second: "It is easier for me to stay on welfare."
The third: "If I was not on welfare and worked my kids would be without a parent."
I don't think most poor people are lazy, most of them either have a tough time getting off of welfare or want to care for their children. At the same time, welfare was intended to provide temporary assistance, and it is being abused by many people.
There is not an easy answer. Raising wages wouldn't help anything. The more a company pays out, the more they have to charge, and the more services and goods cost, the less it seems like you are getting paid.
I live in Las Vegas, and we have one of the most funded school districts in the country. We receive more funding per pupil than 90% of other school districts nation wide, yet we are always near the bottom of the educational statistics. The teachers mean well, and I had some WONDERFUL teachers when I was a kid. The problem lies in the administration. I read a news article that reported that something like 20% of the entire fiscal budget for the Clark County School District was for salaries and bonuses for the administrative staff, which accounts for only 7% of CCSD employees.
The school district also gives more money to schools in upperclass neighborhoods and shorts at risk schools. My brother just did his eagle project for an at risk school. Fifty percent of the kids at this elementary school are homeless, and many of them have no socks or even underwear. They found a kid in the bathroom and he didn't want to come out because he had a hole in his pants and he had no underwear. The teachers couldn't do anything because they got only half the funding the schools in upperclass neighborhoods did.
The reason? The upperclass schools provided higher test scores and higher graduation rates.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that we should take care of the needy. Socialistic policies collapse when the money runs out. The evidence is an ever growing national debt. The congress has increased the debt limit twice this year yet propose more and more government funded mandates.
We should encourage individual responsibility over dependence. We should encourage people to work toward their selfish desires rather than demonize the successful. We are at a breaking point, past the breaking point. If we weren't past the breaking point they wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling. Congress has raised the national debt ceiling twice this year yet are demanding more government programs. This is no different than an individual who can't pay his credit card bills, asking for a credit increase while applying for another credit card.
Does the situation in Europe and Canada who use in practice more socialist polices then are even being discussed as THEORY in the US and HAVENT run out of money mean anything to you? What about Sweden? UK? France?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, your answer seems to be to ignore the poor until they either die out or become a menace to society via starved revolt or disease carrying walking dead. Either case will best be remedied by a state sponsored purge of the lazy--I mean unfortunate poor.
You want to make them respect and reflect your work ethic. However you can not just wish it is so. You need a plan to indoctrinate those millions with the idea that work and effort brings success. You can't force the media to propagandize that message without losing the right to free speech. Starving them into working doesn't work, as there are not enough jobs for them. What do you do if there are no jobs where they are at?
Its a very complex situation, poverty. But when you sit above it and call everyone in poverty lazy, to say that they could succeed if they try because you tried and succeeded, makes you look like an ungrateful git.
Besides doing impossible things like making people you claim are all lazy suddenly find enlightenment and work hard, what do you propose to do with the poor? What will become of them?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Does the situation in Europe and Canada who use in practice more socialist polices then are even being discussed as THEORY in the US and HAVENT run out of money mean anything to you? What about Sweden? UK? France?
I take issue with this only because the only reason they have NOT run out of money in the UK (I don't know about Sweden and France) is because most people are paying between 50-60% in taxes. There are hundreds of articles that you can google on your own that talk about how the UK is having trouble funding their health programs or keeping doctors.
I'm not saying there is nothing good about socialized medicine, just that those countries have their own share of issues.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Insofar as healthcare is concerned, our issues > their issues.
by leaps and bounds.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try shopping without a car for a while.
I have. It is absolutely awful. I used to go into the store with a backpack, which I filled with the heaviest stuff, then I would walk home carrying two bags of groceries on each arm. If it was hot, the food didn't fare well. If it was cold, I didn't fare well.
One place I lived I could catch a bus for part of the trip, but I still walked a good quarter to half a mile carrying those bags of groceries.
It works better if you have a bicycle with wide handles. And balance your bags equally between the two handlebars. And go to a grocery store that is up hill from you so that you can coast home.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have. It is absolutely awful. I used to go into the store with a backpack, which I filled with the heaviest stuff, then I would walk home carrying two bags of groceries on each arm. If it was hot, the food didn't fare well. If it was cold, I didn't fare well.
One place I lived I could catch a bus for part of the trip, but I still walked a good quarter to half a mile carrying those bags of groceries.
You're a woman in serious need of a bike. I went all last summer on a single tank of gasoline - I only drove in emergencies and thunder storms. The rest of the time I biked, and I got by fine. I strapped a hard plastic "square" thingy (can't find a proper word for it, but you see them all the time in groceries) that my roommate had to the back of my bike, and would hang extra bags from the handlebars. Never had any problems, and the grocery store was 2 miles away. (about 10 minutes to bike)
I'd bike to work and back every morning (18 mile round trip), bike to church (with a change of clothes and some deodorant in a bag), bike to school, to friends houses... it's amazing how easy it is to get by without a car when you try. If it was raining, I'd just put on a jacket and rain pants. I don't have any kids, but I'd see a lot of people towing kid-carrying wagons (seat belts and everything) behind their bikes on the bike trails.
This is more difficult in the winter, but I still see a lot of people biking in the winter too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
If she's healthy enough to walk a mile, she's healthy enough to bike two.
Safe to park? A $7 bike lock makes it at least as safe as parking a car.
And I live in a cold and snowy northern city, with lots of rain in the summer. I actually enjoy taking long walks in the winter, especially if it's snowing... it's very magical.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:In fact, I've yet to see an internet discussion on God, Christianity, or Creationism end well. Ever.
ahhhhh...I remember better days. And it was exactly those types of reasons that kept me at Hatrack.
Yep. It didn't ALWAYS end well, but occasionally it did, which made this place better than 99.999% of the internet.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
As far as foods.......hight fat meat costs less, and one of the worst food groups for gaining weight are starches... which are cheap.
A poor person, even when cooking at home, is far more likely to life on Ramen noodles, mac and cheese, and spaghetti than people with more disposable income.
It's one of the best known facts about nutrition there is, and burying your head in the sand and blaming welfare for all problems won't change that facts.
Dogbreath, they are called crates. Plastic crates or milk crates, as that is what is delivered in them more often than not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Milk crates! Thanks! Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
If she's healthy enough to walk a mile, she's healthy enough to bike two.
In my particular case, this is not true. I am legally blind, which makes it much "healthier" (where healthy actually means safe) for me to walk than to ride a bike in traffic. I can walk on the sidewalk but I'm not allowed to ride there. While I would feel safe riding in the street if there were a bike lane, I've never lived anywhere that really had these -- unless you count a few bike paths designed for recreational use.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
If she's healthy enough to walk a mile, she's healthy enough to bike two.
Safe to park? A $7 bike lock makes it at least as safe as parking a car.
And I live in a cold and snowy northern city, with lots of rain in the summer. I actually enjoy taking long walks in the winter, especially if it's snowing... it's very magical.
Dogbreath, I am not addressing Christine in particular; I am addressing the obstacles that poor people in general can face. "Get a bike" is not an all purpose solution to the difficulties poor people have in getting good quality groceries.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dogbreath, I am not addressing Christine in particular; I am addressing the obstacles that poor people in general can face. "Get a bike" is not an all purpose solution to the difficulties poor people have in getting good quality groceries.
Where did I say that? Where in this thread did I even remotely imply that? Seriously, read through everything I've said in this thread before making assumptions like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Where did I say you had? I was preempting the possible implication that could have arisen from your brief derail into Christine's biking options.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I used to ride my horse and carriage to get to and from the supermarket, but then I found out what my horse's carbon footprint was, and had to stop. >.<
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:I used to ride my horse and carriage to get to and from the supermarket, but then I found out what my horse's carbon footprint was, and had to stop. >.<
How does a horse measure up to a car, motorcycle, scooter, person, etc? The fact you can't turn them off when they're not in operation is a big downside.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Mal, your answer seems to be to ignore the poor until they either die out or become a menace to society via starved revolt or disease carrying walking dead. Either case will best be remedied by a state sponsored purge of the lazy--I mean unfortunate poor.
You want to make them respect and reflect your work ethic. However you can not just wish it is so. You need a plan to indoctrinate those millions with the idea that work and effort brings success. You can't force the media to propagandize that message without losing the right to free speech. Starving them into working doesn't work, as there are not enough jobs for them. What do you do if there are no jobs where they are at?
Its a very complex situation, poverty. But when you sit above it and call everyone in poverty lazy, to say that they could succeed if they try because you tried and succeeded, makes you look like an ungrateful git.
Besides doing impossible things like making people you claim are all lazy suddenly find enlightenment and work hard, what do you propose to do with the poor? What will become of them?
There are enough jobs for them. The uneducated in our country go on welfare while we import illiterate illegal immigrants to do the jobs they should be doing. The illegal immigrant isn't starving,...to him this is the land of milk and honey. I have more respect for the Guatemalan villager who hiked hundreds of miles to illegally enter this country than I do for the welfare recipient down the road. That illegal immigrant's child will grow up and succeed while we get a 5th generation American welfare recipient in the compassionate ghetto.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm sorry, I'm done interacting with you at all if you don't address the last few things I've said, considering this will be your Nth sidestep of posts you simply don't want to deal with. Your cowardice would be easier to swallow if you didn't constantly and loudly proclaim your great and noble valor.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Give me a moment. My reply was to Darth, not to you. I'll go back and look at yours.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm sorry, I'm done interacting with you at all if you don't address the last few things I've said, considering this will be your Nth sidestep of posts you simply don't want to deal with. Your cowardice would be easier to swallow if you didn't constantly and loudly proclaim your great and noble valor.
Here are your last two posts:
["I don't know why I should bother with you at all after you decided to dismiss a fairly detailed explanation you're too lazy to deal with by mere hand-waving. Marketing = complex. Your view = simplistic. It's enough for you to believe that anything bad that ever happens to anyone is their own fault, full stop, bar the complexities of reality, and let's just ignore the details that don't line up with our pleasant assumptions, shall we."
":sigh:
I can tell you that the answer is not your brand of moral superiority and egoism. I like that you jumped to an uber-authoritarian approach in the form of forced adoption in order to avoid the oh-so-scary idea of regulating the food industry more closely. I know you're half-jesting, but on the other hand I also know that you're half serious.
Oh but on the other hand, thank you for finally admitting that I was right, and taking the premise of my argument as a given. I know you would never admit that either, but switching the argument over to what to do about it is a tacit concession of my point. Knowing is half the battle. If pure capitalism really worked, there would be no need for any action, but sadly, your religion is centered around a false god. Sucks for you."]
Basically I believe the greater good is counter intuitive. The greatest good is the society in which people cannot rely on the government. I would trade each multi-generational welfare recipient for an uneducated Guatemalan Villager. That Guatemalan villager's dream is to be American....they can succeed here even if they do not speak the language. They will teach their children how to work hard and achieve. Progressives are compassionate and encourage families to teach their children to depend on progressive compassion.
Cuban immigrants are overwhelmingly conservative. They know what Progressive Cuba was like.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And yet you are more compassionate than the "Progressives," right? How would your perfect world of religious oligarchy be any different than a socialist government run amuck?
And as much as you hate government, you spout American nationalism like a true believer. The two sides of that coin are socialism, and fascism- the way I see it, either you believe in "The Greatest Nation on Earth," and support its sovereignty over your individual liberty, or you don't. I don't see how your view of your country is at all consistent with your stated philosophies.
Posted by Badenov (Member # 12075) on :
quote: If I suggest doing the same, using the government as my means of distribution, and the officials me and 50+% of my peers have elected to enforce this agree, it's derided as communism - often by the same people who would praise me for my generosity.
Forced taxation and redistribution is not charitable giving. Charitable giving requires a level of personal sacrifice which taxation erases. The benefit of enjoyment at seeing one's charitable donations result in a greater amount of good than being used for consumption by the giver disappears. The increased feeling of self-worth that accompanies actual charitable giving disappears as well. Belief that money spent on Government redistribution of funds is, in my opinion, nothing more than a deep seeded desire to shove the responsibility of caring for our fellow man under the rug and on the shoulders of someone else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Belief that money spent on Government redistribution of funds is, in my opinion, nothing more than a deep seeded desire to shove the responsibility of caring for our fellow man under the rug and on the shoulders of someone else.
I'd buy this if, back in the day before government welfare, people did a passable job of caring for their fellow men. They did not.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Indeed, and it is fairly easy to test, in situations where one area decreases funding for social programs and another, similar (and ideally nearby) one doesn't.
Outside charities do not step in significantly, even if the imbalance continues for a long time.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And yet you are more compassionate than the "Progressives," right? How would your perfect world of religious oligarchy be any different than a socialist government run amuck?
And as much as you hate government, you spout American nationalism like a true believer. The two sides of that coin are socialism, and fascism- the way I see it, either you believe in "The Greatest Nation on Earth," and support its sovereignty over your individual liberty, or you don't. I don't see how your view of your country is at all consistent with your stated philosophies.
I believe the greatest good is served in a free nation. There can be no individual freedom without individual responsibility. Socialism collapses because necessities become rights that the government is expected to provide. Government is an illusion. Some people think the government is a bottomless bucket of gold that can pay for your needs. The government is funded by the productive. The greatest good is best served in a nation in which everyone works to meet their needs rather than look to the government to provide them. The greatest good is creating an atmosphere conducive to productivity. I draw a distinction between the "needy" and those who expect the government to provide their basic "needs". Government should provide a safety net not meet the needs of the people. Health care is not a basic right/need...it's far below oxygen, water, food, clothing, shelter, etc.
You cannot argue healthcare is a right without demanding govt provided water, food, clothing and housing first. Prioritize the needs of humanity. Is healthcare above government provided water?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Government should provide a safety net not meet the needs of the people. Health care is not a basic right/need...it's far below oxygen, water, food, clothing, shelter, etc.
You're arguing that health care is a less basic need than clothing? On what grounds?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You'll either freeze to death or get arrested for not having it. The latter is a government restriction though. Although, if the government provided shelter and utilities, you could survive in your house naked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or if you live somewhere warm enough, etc.... To put it another way: why is healthcare not a "basic" right when clothing is?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Clothing isn't a basic right. The most fundamental element of human survival isn't paid for by the government...water. If it's about basic needs, let's start with basic needs. I spend more money on food for my family than I do on health care...which need is more imminent? You will die in less than a week without water....why do I still have a water bill to an evil private company?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I spend more money on food for my family than I do on health care...which need is more imminent?
Good question. Does pricing usually work as a yardstick to determine imminent need?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If that were the yardstick, water would be gold. Combined, my internet, TV and phone cost much more than my insurance premium. How many people are demanding healthcare when their car payment and auto insurance cost more than healthcare? I make good money. My cars are ten years old and paid for with liability insurance. I drive by the projects and see better vehicles than those in my driveway. Poor people are more likely to be smokers, the healthcare tax on cigarettes must really impact them negatively.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Would you please care to drop the blame the victim and glorify yourself bullshit, *please?*. We've heard the same thing from you 10 times in this thread, and it gets old.
"Poor people suck but I have a big screen TV and I watch power rangers which teaches me about beating up communists and if the bottom 10% did that there would be no problems but I got my big screen on sale because I'm frugal and I watch it on sunday afternoons because I have 19 jobs and if the government had given me a tv it would be tuned to PBS and I wouldn't learn about beating up communists and did I mention I have a black friend and of course I have 19 jobs and a big screen TV and did I mention that I work alot and live a more authentic life than you do even though I post at all hours on Hatrack and then make fun of people for doing that and did I mention that I make a lot of money buy was POOR POOR POOR growing up but we didn't eat McDonald's because it's not poor people food?"
I can't go on with this idiot. It's like boxing a ****ing drunk kangaroo.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, yes, it would be stupid to use price as a yardstick for imminent need. So now that we've agreed that we should not pretend that price should correlate to need, let's talk in more depth about what you think constitutes a "basic" right.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Or we could let this thread die. You know, just sayin'.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)