Ignorance Cometh Forth

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 3:25 AM GMT
    I teach at a community college where my students work 40+ hours a week and go to school full time and yet STILL struggle to pay their bills, and have to make decisions like whether to buy food this month or get their prescriptions--because they can't afford both. The only reason some of them are able to survive at all is because of the safety net the government provides. The idea that they willfully choose to not perform economically is insulting, ignorant, and just plain false. These people work much, much harder than you or I, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The fact of the matter is you have been lucky--yes LUCK has more to do with it than work, as they work harder than you. You have been lucky enough to come from a life situation where you were able to secure a good education and a high paying job. Your good fortune gives you a responsibility to those who have not been as lucky as yourself.

    And the idea it is "socialist" to say that the lucky who are wealthy are responsible to the less fortunate is utter garbage. Those with excessive incomes have always and should always contribute a larger portion towards the good of society--because they have more to give. Every major philosopher, ethicist, and religion throughout history has believed this, and to argue otherwise reeks of selfishness, greed, and a disgusting blindness to the plight of the underprivileged. This type of callousness and greed makes me sick.
  • DzanMason

    Posts: 15

    Mar 22, 2009 3:47 AM GMT
    I whole heartedly agree with the entire second paragraph you have written, but I find it hard to believe that you can think a good education comes with luck. Yes, while some people's education offers them more resources (computers, field trips, more of a visual and hands on experience), there is a self-inflicted scarcity in education in this country. We so heavily rely on an external motivator, someone else to push us into being our best.

    While I cannot place myself in your position (meaning you may prove me completely wrong), youth of America takes for granted the entire system of education we offer. For some reason most kids feel that rebellion marks their popularity, in turn they shutdown and deny any mental stimulation.

    It's something I've seen, experienced, and tried to fix (recently too), but its one unfortunate downfall of this country that instills a terrible lesson at a young age.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 4:15 AM GMT
    twomack saidI teach at a community college where my students work 40+ hours a week and go to school full time and yet STILL struggle to pay their bills, and have to make decisions like whether to buy food this month or get their prescriptions--because they can't afford both. The only reason some of them are able to survive at all is because of the safety net the government provides. The idea that they willfully choose to not perform economically is insulting, ignorant, and just plain false. These people work much, much harder than you or I, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The fact of the matter is you have been lucky--yes LUCK has more to do with it than work, as they work harder than you. You have been lucky enough to come from a life situation where you were able to secure a good education and a high paying job. Your good fortune gives you a responsibility to those who have not been as lucky as yourself.

    And the idea it is "socialist" to say that the lucky who are wealthy are responsible to the less fortunate is utter garbage. Those with excessive incomes have always and should always contribute a larger portion towards the good of society--because they have more to give. Every major philosopher, ethicist, and religion throughout history has believed this, and to argue otherwise reeks of selfishness, greed, and a disgusting blindness to the plight of the underprivileged. This type of callousness and greed makes me sick.


    The Red States (Republicans and Religious Right) put forth and attitude of I,I,I,me,me,me.

    I concur with your views, for the most part, particularly with folks pursuing self improvement. Some folks, however, do leach / are freeloaders. In some cultures, 80% of all children are born to single parent households. That should be corrected from within. We can't solve those issues with welfare programs. Those issues have to be resolved from within those cultures.

    While I think there is a social responsibility to others, folks also have a social, and moral, responsibility to themselves, and their respective cultures. It's not as simple as throwing more money at it, as I'm sure you are aware. Personal accountability is also important. It's a hard thing to fix.

    Clearly, everyone should be paying that's able, including the illegals. Clearly, folks need wellness promotions, education, and medical care.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 4:37 AM GMT
    DzanMason said
    While I cannot place myself in your position (meaning you may prove me completely wrong), youth of America takes for granted the entire system of education we offer. For some reason most kids feel that rebellion marks their popularity, in turn they shutdown and deny any mental stimulation.


    Actually, in my neck of the woods, it is considered "cool" to be smart. Not to mention many star athletes were also star students. All of the kids in my classes were considered popular and cool. We have different "phase" classes; phase 3 &2 students were labeled as unmotivated, slow, druggies; phase 1 & 0 students were labeled as bright, motivated, popular, trendy/preppy, etc. Labels aren’t always right though, but that is what the impressions were in my HS.

    Competition fueled our need for knowledge. Now most of the students I graduated HS with are engineers, in residency to become doctors, biomedical/biochemical researchers, etc.

    Where I come from it is uncool to get bad grades or be intellectually unmotivated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 4:39 AM GMT
    twomack saidAnd the idea it is "socialist" to say that the lucky who are wealthy are responsible to the less fortunate is utter garbage. Those with excessive incomes have always and should always contribute a larger portion towards the good of society--because they have more to give. Every major philosopher, ethicist, and religion throughout history has believed this, and to argue otherwise reeks of selfishness, greed, and a disgusting blindness to the plight of the underprivileged. This type of callousness and greed makes me sick.


    "Social Darwinism"--Survival of the Richest.icon_rolleyes.gif

    Make you proud to be a human eh?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 4:41 AM GMT
    Don't get me wrong - I'm all for safety nets. But I do take exception with the notion of mandating the haves to provide for the have nots. I worked pretty damn hard to get where I am today. I paid for my own education. I worked several low-paying jobs along the way. And now, I pay a hell of a lot of taxes! What more do you want? I give to several charities, but do so of my own free will, not because some governmental entity mandates it. Hell, I wouldn't even mind paying more taxes if I thought that government had the slightest clue about how to manage and allocate it.

    I'm a big believer in expectancy theory. Without incentives, why should people try harder and reach higher? Somewhere in all of this is a balance, but shaming the successful is populist propaganda.

    PS: Who is this "you" of whom you speak? Are you suggesting that everyone reading your post is greedy and calloused?

    Oh, and what about endowments and charitable trusts? Would you not agree that such charities -- established by those damnable rich folks, no less -- provide more bang for the buck than any governmental pet project or program ever could?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 5:07 AM GMT
    Ruck,

    Charities are great and all, but many people in need slip through the cracks. I understand what you are saying about the government and taxes, but it is hard to get ahead when you are constanly being held down by multiple factors... including one's own motivational will. Some have no hope at all of ever having a respectable and middle-class lifestyle--some give up. It is easy to condemn those people when their next door neighbor... in the same position... thrive with the beginnings of their own business. It is easy to condem the "lazy people" when others just like them have risen to the top of American scoiety.

    But not all men/women are created equal--personalities, family issues, medical/psychological/developmental issues, sociocultrual inflences, and economic influences are different in each family.

    The "American Dream" cannot be obtained by everyone without some form of help in my opinion.

    PS Ruck: I am not implying that you were going against what I just wrote; my message to you was basically about charities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 5:22 AM GMT
    wow, no one likes a sanctimoniously impassioned fanatic...

    ok so the OP is Right and everyone with other views are wrong by default... and make him sick,,, lovely. so glad he got that out of his system so we can ignore the rant and have real discussions in more hospitable threads lol




    there are no absolutes, nor absolutely right perspectives. ever. even this absolute is subject to failure :p
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 22, 2009 5:22 AM GMT
    twomack saidI teach at a community college where my students work 40+ hours a week and go to school full time and yet STILL struggle to pay their bills, and have to make decisions like whether to buy food this month or get their prescriptions--because they can't afford both. The only reason some of them are able to survive at all is because of the safety net the government provides. The idea that they willfully choose to not perform economically is insulting, ignorant, and just plain false. These people work much, much harder than you or I, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The fact of the matter is you have been lucky--yes LUCK has more to do with it than work, as they work harder than you. You have been lucky enough to come from a life situation where you were able to secure a good education and a high paying job. Your good fortune gives you a responsibility to those who have not been as lucky as yourself.

    And the idea it is "socialist" to say that the lucky who are wealthy are responsible to the less fortunate is utter garbage. Those with excessive incomes have always and should always contribute a larger portion towards the good of society--because they have more to give. Every major philosopher, ethicist, and religion throughout history has believed this, and to argue otherwise reeks of selfishness, greed, and a disgusting blindness to the plight of the underprivileged. This type of callousness and greed makes me sick.


    Interesting that twomack posted my words to him (without my permission, incidentally), in an effort to insult me, and yet the majority of responses have been in agreement with me. I should clarify that I do value the hard work many take in getting an education, securing a good job, and advancing in their careers; I've certainly worked my ass off to get where I am. But it's undeniable that there's a degree of luck in there as well, as any one who works hard but has been laid off can tell you, and regardless, with success always comes a responsibility to those who are less fortunate than yourself.

    It disgusts me that any one would allow someone who is worse off financially to go hungry, to lose their home, or to have their child die due to lack of medical care, just so the opulently wealthy can avoid contributing a tiny fraction of their excessive disposable income to the good of society's less fortunate. The very idea that there are people who think that way makes me sick, and I only thank God that due to education and the spread of truth via the internet, their kind is becoming more and more of a minority, as polls show without any ambiguity. Education is the key tool in extinguishing ignorance.

    It's good to see that most of the posters on this forum are not so callous, greedy, and cold-hearted as the one who stole my words.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 5:49 AM GMT
    My post was an e-mail I received from t0theheights. He has ranted so often about wealth and economic reform, I thought the e-mail needed to be posted.

    Tom
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 5:51 AM GMT
    The post is an e-mail I received from t0theheights.

    Tom


    ruck_us saidDon't get me wrong - I'm all for safety nets. But I do take exception with the notion of mandating the haves to provide for the have nots. I worked pretty damn hard to get where I am today. I paid for my own education. I worked several low-paying jobs along the way. And now, I pay a hell of a lot of taxes! What more do you want? I give to several charities, but do so of my own free will, not because some governmental entity mandates it. Hell, I wouldn't even mind paying more taxes if I thought that government had the slightest clue about how to manage and allocate it.

    I'm a big believer in expectancy theory. Without incentives, why should people try harder and reach higher? Somewhere in all of this is a balance, but shaming the successful is populist propaganda.

    PS: Who is this "you" of whom you speak? Are you suggesting that everyone reading your post is greedy and calloused?

    Oh, and what about endowments and charitable trusts? Would you not agree that such charities -- established by those damnable rich folks, no less -- provide more bang for the buck than any governmental pet project or program ever could?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 6:34 AM GMT
    I for one owe nobody anything. Just because I live in an affluent part of town, get to put what ever I want in the shopping cart, have good holidays. Dose it mean, I have to give to people who are lazy, and unproductive?

    Or think their sperm is so great they need to populate the world with it, then expect the tax payer to support his children.

    Oz is also a new country compared to many others, who have had much more time to get they're shit together, and they are the ones who put out their hand the most!

    I have my charities. But I do this because I wont to. I feel more responsible for wild life, than I do other humans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 8:12 AM GMT
    TheGuyNextDoor saidcatcatcatcatcatcatcat
    Here we go,,, who else wants to pull up a seat and watch this mess as it unfolds...


    I'll sit next to you, and ignore the show while we make out.

    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 11:00 AM GMT
    The US public education system has some glaring problems in the inner cities. Supposedly 2,000 out of the 28,000 public schools in the country account for 50% of all dropouts. Just turning this problem around would be a major accomplishment.

    I agree with personal responsibility, but I am also willing to admit my ability to act responsibly was just not my own doing. For example, I had parents who praised me for getting good grades, and were on my case if I was not doing my homework. Not everyone is so fortunate.

    As for health care, well that is a problem the US should have tackled decades ago. Unfortunately it was not, and now they are trying to tackle it during the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.

    Presently the USA has the world's most expensive health care, but not the best results. Not a good combination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 5:00 PM GMT
    I'm not going to disagree with the original premise of this discussion, you can believe that those who earn more should give more, I have no problem with that. HOWEVER it's my choice to give thru charities, church, etc. It's not the role of government to forcefully TAKE what more of what I have earned simply because I EARN more then someone else.

    I tithe at my church, generously contribute to causes, charities, and people as I so chose. I also surrender unto to Caeser what is Caeser's. It is NOT the role of government to chose/force me to redistribute my wealth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 5:20 PM GMT
    mikey669 saidI'm not going to disagree with the original premise of this discussion, you can believe that those who earn more should give more, I have no problem with that. HOWEVER it's my choice to give thru charities, church, etc. It's not the role of government to forcefully TAKE what more of what I have earned simply because I EARN more then someone else.

    I tithe at my church, generously contribute to causes, charities, and people as I so chose. I also surrender unto to Caeser what is Caeser's. It is NOT the role of government to chose/force me to redistribute my wealth.


    I agree. What I earn is my money. No one else is entitled to it, least of all the government. I agree that everyone (not just those making >$250K) should pay taxes because we all benefit from from police, fire, a strong national defense etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 5:41 PM GMT
    Interesting that some politicians who preach the loudest about making the rich pay a greater share seem oddly reluctant to pay their own taxes. Charles Rangel, anyone? Chris Dodd? Most of Obama's cabinet appointees?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 6:07 PM GMT

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 6:15 PM GMT
    I call bullshit. I grew up in a pretty poor area. So I get student loans to pay for my education. I've worked as a manager in charge of hiring and as a grunt. I've always found that as long as you show up on time, and try to show some interest in your job, you'll get somewhere. Maybe cause I'm gay and not popping out babies left and right I have an advantage. Oh wait, nevermind. I have three siblings doing the same thing but they are straight. They chose not to have five million kids and are able to afford the things they like. And it helps that we don't smoke crack. Get over it. I worked to get where I am, and I don't owe trailer trash meth heads at community college shit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 6:16 PM GMT
    HAHA, and now I feel like a tard, cause I just read that it was an email you got. Oh well. I still feel the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 6:44 PM GMT
    Pattison.

    You are a fuckin dumbass! I can't believe how apathetic you are. You are the scum of this Earth... not because you do not wish to see federal money go to the needy, but because of your stereotypical views of those less fortunate than you.

    I have tried to tolerate your views and have even learned things from you in the past. This is just too much. You make me sick... really--when I read your post I got a sick feeling in my stomach.

    I hate and hardly ever use ad hominems, but for you, Pattison, I'll make an exception this one time.icon_twisted.gif Your appoarch to this debate was to demonize those who are less fortunate--apparently "lazy, unproductive, baby-making machines." You disgust me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 6:50 PM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 saidPattison.

    You are a fuckin dumbass! I can't believe how apathetic you are. Yo are the scum of this Earth... not because you do not wish to see federal money go to the needy, but because of your stereotypical views of those less fortunate than you.

    I have tried to tolerate your views and have even learned things from you in the past. This is just too much. You make me sick... really--when I read your post I got a sick feeling in my stomach.

    I hate and hardly ever use ad hominems, but for you, Pattison, I'll make an exception this one time.icon_twisted.gif Your appoarch to this debate was to demonize those who are less fortunate--apparently "lazy, unproductive, baby-making machines." You disgust me.


    Says the facist. This is why there is absolutely no point in trying to debate anything political when most of the gay community happens to be either, marxist in their economic outlook facist in their tolerance of people who disagree with you, or both in most cases.

    Guys this is a fitness site. Definitly not a place to hash out political arguements (plenty of other places for that) If you want to fight or throw ad hominems around, at least have some respect for people who have different views than you do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 6:58 PM GMT
    twomack saidI teach at a community college where my students work 40+ hours a week and go to school full time and yet STILL struggle to pay their bills, and have to make decisions like whether to buy food this month or get their prescriptions--because they can't afford both. The only reason some of them are able to survive at all is because of the safety net the government provides. The idea that they willfully choose to not perform economically is insulting, ignorant, and just plain false. These people work much, much harder than you or I, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The fact of the matter is you have been lucky--yes LUCK has more to do with it than work, as they work harder than you. You have been lucky enough to come from a life situation where you were able to secure a good education and a high paying job. Your good fortune gives you a responsibility to those who have not been as lucky as yourself.

    And the idea it is "socialist" to say that the lucky who are wealthy are responsible to the less fortunate is utter garbage. Those with excessive incomes have always and should always contribute a larger portion towards the good of society--because they have more to give. Every major philosopher, ethicist, and religion throughout history has believed this, and to argue otherwise reeks of selfishness, greed, and a disgusting blindness to the plight of the underprivileged. This type of callousness and greed makes me sick.


    This is a typical view most liberals have of conservative views. Notice that it is all emotion, and not a single fact or statistic to back up your feelings. We do not argue that the "rich" should do more, we agree with that. We argue that the government, which has a monopoly on force should not be made to compel the "rich" to do more. Sorry, but that is all I have time to respond to.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 22, 2009 7:04 PM GMT
    I salute the OP.
    So many times, I have seen stories of an individual (or family) in the news who has had some bad luck where they need a place to live, a car, or just some food. And, I have very often thought that, boy, if I was rich, I'd love to provide them with what they need. I think that it's a real thrill to give.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2009 7:04 PM GMT
    Philadelphiabound saidSays the facist. This is why there is absolutely no point in trying to debate anything political when most of the gay community happens to be either, marxist in their economic outlook facist in their tolerance of people who disagree with you, or both in most cases.

    Guys this is a fitness site. Definitly not a place to hash out political arguements (plenty of other places for that) If you want to fight or throw ad hominems around, at least have some respect for people who have different views than you do.
    What words can be used to reconcile those two statements?