Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 181
  1. #81  
    Originally posted by MIKE STH
    Reward productivity and offer no reward for those that chose not to contribute.
    If you have never met your father and your mother was a crack addict before and after you were born, you don't CHOSE not to contribute. I you were born under such circumstances (as thousands are), do you think you would be posting here after growing up?

    Certainly there should NOT be a reward for NOT contributing, but still disadvantaged people should be allowed to live in dignity, which certainly includes adequate medical treatment.
  2. #82  
    Originally posted by clulup
    If you have never met your father and your mother was a crack addict before and after you were born, you don't CHOSE not to contribute. I you were born under such circumstances (as thousands are), do you think you would be posting here after growing up? [...]
    Have you ever personally met anyone like that, or are you just regurgitating stuff that you heard elsewhere? That's quite patronizing and condescending. The White Man's Burden still lives.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #83  
    Why do you go to such great lengths to offer excuses for such people?

    If you continue to place excuses on the table before accountability or performance, then many will take the path you are steering them toward. You actually encourage them to continue the cycle. It's not a favor to them.


    Originally posted by clulup

    If you have never met your father and your mother was a crack addict before and after you were born, you don't CHOSE not to contribute. I you were born under such circumstances (as thousands are), do you think you would be posting here after growing up?

    Certainly there should NOT be a reward for NOT contributing, but still disadvantaged people should be allowed to live in dignity, which certainly includes adequate medical treatment.
    "Stupid Handspring."
  4. #84  
    Originally posted by clulup
    disadvantaged people should be allowed to live in dignity, which certainly includes adequate medical treatment, which certainly includes adequate medical treatment.
    Define "disadvantaged", "dignity", and "adequate"? I'm sure your definitions will be different from mine. There's a BIG difference between a child born to a crack addicted mother, and a child born into a 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation welfare family.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  5. #85  
    Originally posted by MIKE STH
    Why do you go to such great lengths to offer excuses for such people?
    Must be one of them liberals...


    If you continue to place excuses on the table before accountability or performance, then many will take the path you are steering them toward. You actually encourage them to continue the cycle. It's not a favor to them.
    I couldn't have said it better myself!

    Unfortunately, the "disadvantaged" aren't the only ones this applies to. I see people take the "easy" way out every day (especially at work).

    I've always believed that anything is possible as long as you're willing to work for it. You may never get there, but you'll never know if you don't try. Has anyone ever tried to teach a child to ride a bike? "Daddy, I'll never be able to do it without training wheels!". Well, when's the last time anyone saw an adult riding a bike with them?
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  6. #86  
    Originally posted by Toby

    Have you ever personally met anyone like that, or are you just regurgitating stuff that you heard elsewhere? That's quite patronizing and condescending. The White Man's Burden still lives.
    You do not seriously doubt my example is valid, do you? Given that you accept my example as a possible situation in real life, and assuming that the the kid born from a crack addict and growing up on his own does not contribute to society in a satisfying way once he or she has grown up, who's fault is it? The (former) kid's? Thank's a lot for your answer in advance.

    P.S.: I do NOT think we should encourage people to live from welfare instead of working. Personally, I don't get a salary if I don't generate revenues.
  7. #87  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    Define "disadvantaged", "dignity", and "adequate"? I'm sure your definitions will be different from mine. There's a BIG difference between a child born to a crack addicted mother, and a child born into a 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation welfare family.
    disadvantaged: being in an unfavorable, inferior, or prejudicial condition, in this case e.g. lack of appropriate education, the emotional care needed to create self-respect, initiative, intellect, etc.

    dignity: the quality or state of being worthy, in this case worthy of living a life in which the most basic needs (eg. food, shelter, basic medical treatment) are taken care of.

    adequate: sufficient for a specific requirement, in this case e.g. requirements like love, affection, encouragement, education, etc. meaning some of the many things that are required to create a valuable member of a human society.

    Which are your definitions of the above terms, are they really different, and if so, in what sense? Thanks a lot for your answer in advance.

    Yes, I agree that there are differences between a child born to a crack addicted mother, and a child born into a 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation welfare family. So?
  8. #88  
    Originally posted by clulup
    You do not seriously doubt my example is valid, do you?
    You didn't answer my question.
    Given that you accept my example as a possible situation in real life,
    Anything is a possible situation in real life. I can theorize the same kid as being a vegetable, or as being a genius who takes advantage of the opportunities that exist to become the next Bill Gates. It's still only theory. Again, have you ever met anyone who is as you theorize? How would you know what opportunities they do or don't have?
    and assuming that the the kid born from a crack addict and growing up on his own does not contribute to society in a satisfying way once he or she has grown up, who's fault is it? The (former) kid's? Thank's a lot for your answer in advance.
    Why would you assume in advance that he/she would not contribute? Again, what do you know about the opportunities or abilities that such a 'kid' would have? Again, have you ever met such a kid and really known what their life and opportunities _really_ are like? Thanks for your answer in advance.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #89  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]You didn't answer my question.[B]Anything is a possible situation in real life. I can theorize the same kid as being a vegetable, or as being a genius who takes advantage of the opportunities that exist to become the next Bill Gates. It's still only theory. Again, have you ever met anyone who is as you theorize? How would you know what opportunities they do or don't have?Why would you assume in advance that he/she would not contribute? Again, what do you know about the opportunities or abilities that such a 'kid' would have? Again, have you ever met such a kid and really known what their life and opportunities _really_ are like? Thanks for your answer in advance.
    You are missing my point, but ok: No, I have never met the child of a crack addict in person, nor have I accompanied one through his or her life. It was just an example. I might as well have chosen the example of a child whose mother ran away, who was beaten by the grandmother, or a child whose mother did not ran away, but had an alcoholic father who abused her, etc. etc. And to answer your question in advance: No, I don't personally know kids who have grown up like that (sorry for growing up in a privileged environment). Having anwered your question, how about answering mine? If some of the kids in my examples do not become respected and productive members of society, whose fault is it?
  10. #90  
    Originally posted by clulup
    You are missing my point,
    Not at all. I'm saying your point is condescending and patronizing.
    but ok: No, I have never met the child of a crack addict in person, nor have I accompanied one through his or her life. It was just an example.
    A theoretical example for which you have no basis to extrapolate from since you have no idea what opportunities they have or lack. Hmm...are you still missing _my_ point?
    I might as well have chosen the example of a child whose mother ran away, who was beaten by the grandmother, or a child whose mother did not ran away, but had an alcoholic father who abused her, etc. etc.
    Yes, you might as well have chosen such an example.
    And to answer your question in advance: No, I don't personally know kids who have grown up like that (sorry for growing up in a privileged environment).
    It's obvious that you're sorry. So sorry that you're willing to excuse behavior of imaginary people because they're so 'disadvantaged' and inferior.
    Having anwered your question, how about answering mine?
    The question is moot.
    If some of the kids in my examples do not become respected and productive members of society, whose fault is it?
    Respected by whom? Productive by whose standards? If it's by _my_ standards, it's their own fault, but then again, my standards for what's respected and productive might be considered disadvantaged and lacking in dignity for someone who grew up in a 'privileged environment'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #91  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Not at all. I'm saying your point is condescending and patronizing.[B]A theoretical example for which you have no basis to extrapolate from since you have no idea what opportunities they have or lack. Hmm...are you still missing _my_ point?[B]Yes, you might as well have chosen such an example.[B]It's obvious that you're sorry. So sorry that you're willing to excuse behavior of imaginary people because they're so 'disadvantaged' and inferior.[B]The question is moot.Respected by whom? Productive by whose standards? If it's by _my_ standards, it's their own fault, but then again, my standards for what's respected and productive might be considered disadvantaged and lacking in dignity for someone who grew up in a 'privileged environment'.
    Suggesting that someone may have less possibilities as a grown up because he or she grew up without being looked after and because his or her mother was a drug addict is certainly not condescending nor patronizing.

    That I do not know the child of a crack addict in person does not mean I have no basis to extrapolate from. Don't jump to conclusions.

    I am not excusing anyone of anything. And why on earth do you do you think I said somebody was inferior??

    So you think it is their fault if (e.g.) grown up children of drug addicts that were constantly neglected or even abused are not productive and respected (as grown ups)... hmm, I don't think so in such cases. I tend to think it is the fault of their parents and partly of the society who did not step in to make circumstances better for these children. Therefore society has to step in now and pay it's share (welfare). (Which does NOT(!) mean I think we should disencourage initiative, self-responsibility, pay bonuses for not working, etc., etc.)
    Last edited by clulup; 05/23/2003 at 11:32 AM.
  12. #92  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Suggesting that someone may have less possibilities as a grown up because he or she grew up without being looked after and because his or her mother was a drug addict is certainly not condescending nor patronizing.
    What does 'less possibilities' mean? Less possibilities than you? Less possibilities than me? How would have any idea what the disparities between those are? You are assigning them a handicap based on what you have (or think you have in comparison to them).
    That I do not know the child of a crack addict in person does not mean I have no basis to extrapolate from. Don't jump to conclusions.
    I don't think _I'm_ the one jumping to conclusions here.
    I am not excusing anyone of anything. And why on earth do you do you think I said somebody was inferior??
    Look back at your definitions in response to Mark's post.
    So you think it is their fault if (e.g.) grown up children of drug addicts that were constantly neglected or even abused are not productive and respected (as grown ups)... hmm, I don't think so in such cases.
    Of course not, because you fantasize them with prejudiced ideas of what such kids are/think/feel/possess and how they will turn out. You can make up whatever outcome you want. Again, though, who defines what is respected or productive?
    I tend to think it is the fault of their parents and partly of the society who did not step in to make circumstances better for these children.
    How would you know what their circumstances are in the first place, or what society does for them. You see end results, then fantasize an apology.
    Therefore society has to step in now and pay it's share (welfare).
    Throwing money at something/someone isn't going to solve a problem.
    (Which does NOT(!) mean I think we should disencourage initiative, self-responsibility, pay bonuses for not working, etc., etc.)
    It may not be what you mean, but it has certainly been demonstrated to be the net effect.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #93  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]What does 'less possibilities' mean? Less possibilities than you? Less possibilities than me? How would have any idea what the disparities between those are? You are assigning them a handicap based on what you have (or think you have in comparison to them).[B]I don't think _I'm_ the one jumping to conclusions here.[B]Look back at your definitions in response to Mark's post.[B]Of course not, because you fantasize them with prejudiced ideas of what such kids are/think/feel/possess and how they will turn out. You can make up whatever outcome you want. Again, though, who defines what is respected or productive?[B]How would you know what their circumstances are in the first place, or what society does for them. You see end results, then fantasize an apology.[B]Throwing money at something/someone isn't going to solve a problem.It may not be what you mean, but it has certainly been demonstrated to be the net effect.
    I said someone MAY have less possibilities because he grew up under very unfavourable conditions, conditions he did not chose. I never said he has no chance. It is correct that I think it is a handicap not to have parents who care for you, for instance. You don't??

    Regarding inferiority, I wrote:
    "disadvantaged: being in an unfavorable, inferior, or prejudicial condition"
    Please note: being in an inferior condition, NOT being inferior! Thanks for reading my postings before blaming me for stuff I never wrote.

    If am fantasizing an apology, as I you put it, what do YOU think are the true reasons if the kid of a neglected, alcoholic mother ends up not contributing to society?

    I also never suggested throwing money at people, there are better ways. Like providing good schools (paying teachers well), providing help for mothers swamped with trouble, and the like.
  14. #94  
    Originally posted by clulup
    I said someone MAY have less possibilities because he grew up under very unfavourable conditions, conditions he did not chose.
    None of us choose the conditions we grow up in. We all choose how we deal with them during the process of growing up, and after we've grown up.
    I never said he has no chance.
    You didn't? Why would you assume he's more or less likely not to make a contribution to society, then? What are you considering a contribution to society?
    It is correct that I think it is a handicap not to have parents who care for you, for instance. You don't??
    No. I think that the only handicaps we have are those we place upon ourselves.
    Regarding inferiority, I wrote:
    "disadvantaged: being in an unfavorable, inferior, or prejudicial condition"
    Please note: being in an inferior condition, NOT being inferior!
    In effect, what's the difference?
    Thanks for reading my postings before blaming me for stuff I never wrote.
    It would probably be more accurate to say for stuff you didn't realize you wrote.
    If am fantasizing an apology, as I you put it, what do YOU think are the true reasons if the kid of a neglected, alcoholic mother ends up not contributing to society?
    I see no reason to even assume that such a kid wouldn't. After all, maybe his mother was neglected and abused as a child herself. How can you hold her responsible for her actions?
    I also never suggested throwing money at people,
    You are obviously not familiar with how the welfare system really works then.
    there are better ways. Like providing good schools (paying teachers well),
    Paying teachers well does not necessarily equate with good schools.
    providing help for mothers swamped with trouble, and the like.
    What help? What trouble?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #95  
    Come on now. The poor will end up in the have not schools.

    Originally posted by Toby
    No one. That's what scares many in the public school system the most.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #96  
    OK. Lets turn the tables. Why is the school system bad now? Instead of tackling the root cause of the rut, some jurisdictions are talking vouchers. What make a school in one district better than one in another? Why cannot the district with the "good" school(s) be emulated?

    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Do you have proof of this? Or is this an opinion? Right now our public school system is already "ghettoized" with people moving to get into certain school districts and even lying about their addresses so that their kids can attend better schools.

    Right now the Mayor of DC has given up on the normal liberal (he's a Dem) agenda vis-a-vis education and is supporting school vouchers because he sees no other way for kids to get a decent education in his town. What do you know that he doesn't?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  17. #97  
    You are basing your arguements on the preminse that everyone who is wealthy moved from rags to riches. Rags to riches stories are a rarity..especially in these times. A lot of the wealthy in America didn't produce anything to get wealthy. They inherit the money, scam investors or gamble on the stock market. I dont see any of these as being productive. In fact, it is closer to leeching.


    Originally posted by MIKE STH
    So you advocate rewarding non-production and punishing production? Where will that ultimately leave you?



    I would strongly disagree! In what twisted way can you rationalize that a wealthy, productive individual is a leech? Again, they produce and consume they are not strictly consumers



    Without acknowledging inheritance and other manners and focusing on actually providing a service or a product, they become wealthy through their efforts.



    Again, I disagree. You should have the option to do with your wealth what you chose. If you want to fund charities and grants, that would be YOUR choice, whereas a directive from the government of from those that only consume shows nothing but jealousy and a will to perpetuate the cycle of rewarding those that do nothing.



    No, but they should certainly be able to chose where it goes. There is no rationalization for taxes to be levied on income while it is made and again on the same taxed dollars upon your/his/her death. That's multiple taxation on the same earned income. Again, who are we penalizing?



    The 'poor' always have the opportunity to rise. It is a matter of applying oneself. Hell, sell dirt...even the filthy rich need dirt for their palatial lawns. The point is to do something instead of sitting back and lamenting your station and not being productive.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  18. #98  
    Again you are talking as if everyone who is wealthy worked hard for it. You think President Bush's daughter was admitted to Yale because she is really smart? How many of America's poor will ever get admitted into Yale? What do you think will happen when daughter Bush leaves Yale? She will probably end up on some boards or the executive of some company making tonnes of cash. It is naive to think that everyone has the same chance of becoming wealthy.

    Originally posted by MIKE STH
    Hence the problem. Generated wealth is based upon action, not looking or waiting...

    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  19. #99  
    What name calling? I didn't call any names . Stop being so sensitive man (or this name calling as well)?

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Nice to see you're resorting to name-calling. As far as I can tell, vouchers will do exactly the opposite since it is now people with money can go to private schools.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  20. #100  
    There is nothing wrong with having an upper class. Everyone society has one -- even commmunist countries like Cuba. If the wealth in society is in the hands of a few with a massive underclass, then there willl be a great deal of unrest. The revolutions in the 16th and 17th century Europe have their root in a small upper class and a massive under class.

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You often tend to see a reversal of tendencies when someone becomes "filthy rich." That is, those extremely well off (Gates, Buffet, Soros, Rockefeller, Carnegie) tend to give a lot of their money away. The arguments for allowing continuation of wealth apply when someone works a lifetime and wants to pass on a hefty (but by no means obscene) amount to their kids, say a million bucks. Why society is entitled to some-most-all, whatever, portion of that is beyond me.

    This of course doesn't even touch on the biggest incentive to have an upper class: they can funnel money to promising ventures that drive growth going forward. The poor cannot fund new ideas, the middle class can do so only in aggregate, and the government is not efficient at it because of the lack of profit motive.

    The unfortunate (for some, including a few in this forum) fact is that a society that wants to advance through market forces needs capital pools controlled by people willing to make large, speculative bets.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posting Permissions