Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » F as in Fat (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: F as in Fat
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
#1 issue. If you are receiving these benefits for what ever reason, is it asking too much of the recipiant to spend our money wisely and knowledgably? And is it too onerous a restriction to place limitations on what can be purchased with the benfits?

I dont think it is in either case.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
#1 issue. If you are receiving these benefits for what ever reason, is it asking too much of the recipiant to spend our money wisely and knowledgably? And is it too onerous a restriction to place limitations on what can be purchased with the benfits?

I dont think it is in either case.

Not too much to ask at all. IIRC, the food stamps program was originally conceived as a support for domestic farming. In that light, one might argue that the food stamp recipients are not even the primary intended beneficiaries, so yeah, we can and should constrain that which can be purchased.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I was in Junior High we were all required to take both Home Economics and Shop every year. That's where I learned the basics of cooking, repairing stuff, resource management and budgeting, and those course did more to contribute to the goal of an independent citizenry than Gym or French or even Art. I don't know why a couple of years of "basic adult skills" aren't required for a high school degree. Costs a lot less to teach the skills than to pay for their absence later. I had a solid grounding in most of this stuff because my family is functional and understood the purpose of parenting, but that was my good fortune. Not everyone is so lucky, and there are plenty of kids coming out of solid families that can't even fold a towel.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't know why a couple of years of "basic adult skills" aren't required for a high school degree. Costs a lot less to teach the skills than to pay for their absence later."

Damn straight. I'd add basic personal and small business finance to the list (including the handling of a reasonable, bearish portfolio and allocating excess funds for it). I firmly believe the only reason it's NOT in the curriculum is because it's not in the interest of the financial elites that it be.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I firmly believe the only reason it's NOT in the curriculum is because it's not in the interest of the financial elites that it be.
I'd look more at individual school districts, which consistently try to reduce the number of requirements kids have. There is a constant fight between the state, which generally tries to require more of students, and local communities, which try to require less. At least, over the last 15 years its been that direction in much of the US.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there ANY district where it is a requirement?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends what exactly you are looking at. The school I am in now, and the last school I worked at, both used to have strong requirements in life-skills type courses. Both have reduced both the requirements, and the accessibility to those classes.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm talking specifically about financial education. The basic of investments, how to decipher the stocks page, how to balance a checkbook and a personal or family budget, how to write a business proposal. I can easily see ways of making this a rather fun and competitive class.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've seen it run in a few school districts, or at least something similar. I've seen that done in math classes. Its been requirement for graduation at one point or another in many school districts in Massachusetts. Its universally been local school boards undoing finances as a requirement, though. So I think the reasons why its not a requirement are a bit more complex than what you stated. Which is not to say that states couldn't make it a requirement, and have significant corporate pressure not to.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You say that as an unqualified assertion based on the fact that you've defined it as a moral issue and beyond not even having bothered to look at systemic issues, outright denying that they could possibly exist.
How do you imagine you can know *anything* about what I have and have not bothered to look at? I'm really curious. Because I don't agree with you I haven't bothered to think about it?

quote:
If the only sources of food withing a reasonable distance of your home are a McDonald's and two mini-marts, how exactly are you being provided with the option to make a healthier choice? If you don't have the benefit of years of being familiarized with the fundamentals of cooking, how exactly do you magically become even basically competent at it while investing all your time and energy into struggling to make ends meet? Change a lifetime of trained habits without some form of support and guidance?
There's healthy food within a reasonable distance of pretty much everywhere. And you're the one arguing with strawmen here; I didn't say anything about "without some form of support or guidance". I explicitly said that support and guidance are good things and that we should give them to those around us. It's like you're just picking random things you disagree with that someone else has said and ascribing them to me, and then arguing with them.

quote:
False assertions all around there. Taste is acquired. Fast food tastes good because it's what people are acclimated to.
First off that's not entirely accurate. Taste comes from a combination of inherent and conditioned factors; it's not purely a matter of conditioning. Second off that doesn't refute (or even have much of anything to do with) anything I've said. We must be speaking different languages.

quote:
It changes the system around them to make better choices possible. AA doesn't saddle a person with extra guilt for each mistake
Who said anything about "saddling a person with extra guilt for each mistake"? I'm really beginning to think you're debating with an imaginary opponent. I said that people should be told that they have choices and that they should make choices that improve their lives. I said that their friends and families should help them make those decisions. And somehow you gathered from this that I want people to be depressed and guilty and not change? Are you even listening a little?

quote:
And, again, AA is nothing like what you've been suggesting, because it checks moralism at the door and concentrates on creating a solution instead of casting blame for poor choices.
No one said anything about "casting blame" or "moralizing", Pyr. Tell me which of these three things AA denies, and be specific.

1. You have a choice about whether or not to drink.

2. If you drink and you're an alcoholic, things will probably tend to go worse for you.

3. Therefore, the responsible decision for you is not to drink, and you should make the right choice.

That's what I've said all along. And somehow you're trying to set this up as a contrast to some sort of judgmental, oppressive framework you imagine I've espoused. Again, it just boggles the mind. I can only conclude that either you're not reading the things that I'm writing, or that some kind of teamist mentality prevents you from understanding it.

quote:
What organizations, exactly are those? The effective ones I know of focus on providing support and resources that people need to improve themselves; they understand that unconditional acceptance and support is the foundation of personal improvement, not moralistic coercion.
This is getting really tedious. For the billionth time, show me where I said that we shouldn't accept people or that we should coerce them. If you can't do that, then stop ascribing this stupid crap to me.

I think you're trying really hard to read something into my argument that isn't there, and no amount of explicit denials on my part will dissuade you. Given that, I'm pretty much done discussing this with you unless you either ask for clarification on points I'm making that you don't understand or actually respond to what I am saying and thinking as opposed to what you think the nasty implications and motivations behind my views are.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For what it's worth, I also never said or implied that you shouldn't look at why people make bad decisions (as Daruma did) and try to fix connected or underlying problems (like an addiction to grains, or drinking because we're depressed, or whatever else). I'm not sure why you're determined to assume that I believe really unreasonable things when nothing I've said, fairly considered, implies that I hold any of the views you're arguing against.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And yet its programs that work by paying attention to human psychology and social dynamics that work the best AA succeeds where a sermon about the evils of alcoholism only serves to create extra guilt for the alcoholic to drink away.

Pyr, have you ever been to an AA meeting? Have you ever read the AA literature? If so, then please expound how you interpreted that from what was said. And if not, then please stop spewing destructive ignorance. AA's one day at a time philosophy and it's virtual trademark prayer about having the wisdom to focus on what we have power to change, is about as opposite to guilt as you can get.

Oh, and guilt isn't the #1 cause for folks to drink. It's RESENTMENT. Telling yourself that society, life, and/or God have focked you over. Miserable self-pity leading to self-indulgence. AA tells people to forgive, to let go of resentments, including guilt which is self-resentment. If you know of any other organization or philosophy that's saved more lives from alcoholism, please let me know.

[ July 10, 2011, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And yet its programs that work by paying attention to human psychology and social dynamics that work the best AA succeeds where a sermon about the evils of alcoholism only serves to create extra guilt for the alcoholic to drink away.

Pyr, have you ever been to an AA meeting? Have you ever read the AA literature? If so, then please expound how you interpreted that from what was said. And if not, then please stop spewing destructive ignorance. AA's one day at a time philosophy and it's virtual trademark prayer about having the wisdom to focus on what we have power to change, is about as opposite to guilt as you can get.

That is, indeed, my point.

quote:
Oh, and guilt isn't the #1 cause for folks to drink. It's RESENTMENT. Telling yourself that society, life, and/or God have focked you over. Miserable self-pity leading to self-indulgence. AA tells people to forgive, to let go of resentments, including guilt which is self-resentment. If you know of any other organization or philosophy that's saved more lives from alcoholism, please let me know.
Yes, exactly. Again, that was my point. Instead of heavy handed moralism- adding guilt on top of the problem already at play, it helps change the game so that choosing to behave otherwise becomes more possible, if not the easier choice. It never resorts to "It's your fault for making bad choices" but instead works on engineering a framework for more productive choices.

[ July 10, 2011, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gah! After re-reading, I realize that I totally misread what you said. Sorry.

[ July 11, 2011, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
For what it's worth, I also never said or implied that you shouldn't look at why people make bad decisions (as Daruma did) and try to fix connected or underlying problems (like an addiction to grains, or drinking because we're depressed, or whatever else). I'm not sure why you're determined to assume that I believe really unreasonable things when nothing I've said, fairly considered, implies that I hold any of the views you're arguing against.

Because you keep casting the issue as a matter of willpower and deciding to make better choices on the part of the person suffering from the issue at hand. And when people suggest that we should find ways to change the situation to make it possible for them to make better choices, you cry "social engineering" and insist that the onus for change is on the person suffering rather than the people who have the power to fix the system, even as you actually show that you do actually approve of engineering solutions, just so long as you can exclude your particular ideological bogeyman as being a useful tool for doing so by inventing false arguments about it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[responding generally and entirely setting aside the question of whether Pyr has accurately read what Paladine said, or vice versa, since I've already blundered in my own comprehension] One of AA's helpful insights is that while alcoholics generally can't recover on their own, that it's easier in a community of recovered alcoholics to consistently make that right choice, one day at a time.

OTOH, AA doesn't posit that everyone has that particular weakness towards alcohol; they compare it to a peculiar "alergy." You can't control being alergic, but you can choose, with advise and support from others, to avoid the alergic trigger.

[ July 11, 2011, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OTOH, AA certainly does not treat alcohol as an social engineering problem; they rather seek a social adaptation solution for those that choose it. Hell, I know AA members that are bartenders, and yet have been dry for 15 years. Beats the hell out of me how they do it.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because you keep casting the issue as a matter of willpower and deciding to make better choices on the part of the person suffering from the issue at hand.
Yes, the person deciding to drink or to eat irresponsibly has it in his power to choose not to do those things. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in supporting him in making the right choices, it doesn't mean I don't think it's useful to know why he makes bad choices. It doesn't mean that I don't think there's a good role for communities of support and friends and families and doctors to play.

I don't want the government going around and setting up incentive systems by subsidizing food X or taxing food Y or banning salt content Z or for airlines to charge them more or anything else of that sort. I don't want federally administered or mandated education programs or study groups or blue ribbon commissions or outreach initiatives. You might not want those things either, and that's fine; I'm not asking you to adopt those positions or to advocate for them unless you want to; I didn't start into this thread by talking to or about you. You came into it by talking about me and misrepresenting what I've said and what I think.

I want people to make better decisions with the support and guidance of their friends, families, churches, and communities acting in a voluntary capacity without any "policy" element entering into the picture. Now, you might have honest and intelligent disagreements with what I want and what I think. But stop this nonsense about "guilt" and "moralizing" and "coercion" when I'm explicitly arguing against all three, and stop telling me that negative things which aren't remotely connected to my views are necessary implications.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
want people to make better decisions with the support and guidance of their friends, families, churches, and communities ...
Which is the essence of what government is. Government, in a representive system, is the ultimate expression of community action and guidance.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And when people suggest that we should find ways to change the situation to make it possible for them to make better choices, you cry "social engineering" and insist that the onus for change is on the person suffering rather than the people who have the power to fix the system, even as you actually show that you do actually approve of engineering solutions, just so long as you can exclude your particular ideological bogeyman as being a useful tool for doing so by inventing false arguments about it.
Yes, I approve of people supporting and educating and helping each other voluntarily. I don't support public "policy" initiatives because I think they're the wrong way of fixing the problem. How this seems inconsistent to you is frankly way beyond me; my best guess is that it stems from a conflation of "something people and communities should do" and "something government should enact as public policy".

The really frustrating thing here is that you seem to mostly agree with the kinds of things I like. You just think that when I say "People can make better decisions" that I'm saying something condescending or moralistic (which you use in a pejorative way) instead of something totally noncontroversial and true. You seem to think that by saying they're choosing to do something good that I'm denying that they have understandable reasons for making those choices, or that dealing with the underlying causes of those choices is unnecessary. But that doesn't even loosely resemble anything I've said.

Sometimes choosing the right thing is hard; it usually is. My faith and experience teach me that, in some way or another, we fail to make the right choice every day, usually multiple times. We're a little to quick to anger or a little too impatient or not quite understanding enough. Those are all choices too. So it's not a condescending thing for me to say that someone makes wrong choices; it's part of our nature. It's also part of our nature to try and improve.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"want people to make better decisions with the support and guidance of their friends, families, churches, and communities ...

Which is the essence of what government is. Government, in a representive system, is the ultimate expression of community action and guidance.

Yeah, this is where we differ. And that's fine; I don't mind having a conversation about that. To me there's a big difference between my deciding to volunteer with a community group and government forcibly establishing one and making me pay for it. There's a cavernous difference between a friend giving me advice and a government agency giving me a guideline.

I think that the ultimate expression of who we are as a people should be in our families and churches and volunteer groups; I don't think it should be in government programs and initiatives.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine, remind me please what your position is on illegal drugs?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I found it, unless you've changed your position recently, you support all current drug prohibitions, including that on cannabis.

I'm sorry, but if you say "I oppose the government's right to tax substances that even I agree are manifestly harmful and cost all of us in a myriad of ways. I also oppose its efforts to educate the populace against these harmful things; at the same time, I SUPPORT the government's right to throw people in jail for substances of INFINITELY less proven harm (or even if you dispute this last bit)" you are being logically inconsistent, arbitrary and unreasonable. the two do not in any way compute together.

Meanwhile, I CAN be both a legalization supporter and accept a tax on transfats or twinkies, and/or a government program to educate against consumption of same. Why? Because I don't oppose a tax on legal cannabis, nor do I oppose the right of the government, if it so chooses, to launch PSA's against the use thereof, as it does with alcohol and tobacco (although I will personally hold that there are better ways to spend that money. I will heartily support PSA's on "use wisely, use moderately", but I digress from the immediate concern). All I want is that I no longer be criminalized and incarcerated for my personal choice of mood altering substance, seeing as said punishment is an order of harm far, far greater than participating in the cost of a tax.

Do you follow my argument?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your argument seems to be that if I want the government to be able to ban heroin and meth that I also have to permit it to ban hamburgers and twinkies or risk being called logically inconsistent by you. Do I have it about right?
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record, though, I'm actually opposed to incarceration as a penalty for drug use or the vast majority of other things. I think it causes a lot more problems than it solves.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Your argument seems to be that if I want the government to be able to ban heroin and meth that I also have to permit it to ban hamburgers and twinkies or risk being called logically inconsistent by you. Do I have it about right?"

Well, not quite. Drugs differ. Meth is a horrible drug that causes far more health damage than a life of supersize me. Heroin, if you don't have to rob anyone to buy it, much, much less so. But Cannabis? Yes, if you say the man can ban weed, he should be able to ban, maybe not hamburgers as such, but artificial trans fats (which, for the umpteenth time, are NOT vital to the existence of a burger), and definitely twinkies. You can't agree that junk food and certain processed foods are the primary culprit for the macabre obesity plague afflicting the US, more than any nation on earth to my knowledge, and yet say "I won't have these even taxed or spoken against in a publicly-funded manner, but I will consent to having cannabis, (or even certain other drugs) outright banned". You cannot. You can't say "I refuse to attack major threat A even with a feather, but will attack lesser threat B with a tactical nuke". You can't. I cannot say this enough.

As for incarceration - I too believe it should be reserved solely for violent crime. However, the only reasonable alternative in many cases for a host of non-violent property crimes will then be forced labor, and that has problems of its own.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In theory, if a private action by an individual has no effect whatsoever on any other individual, should society care?

What if an individual undertakes an otherwise completely private action but which has a measurable (if small) cost to society at large, should society care then?

If the latter, then what should be the threshold for validly taking action?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Paladine said (way back on page 1):

You're wrong about him. You're also wrong about conservatives. We tend by and large very much to want to help the people around us; we donate our time and money to religious and charitable organizations that do a ton of good around our communities and around the world. We just don't much like it when sanctimonious blowhards try telling us or others how to live in order to "help" us. We don't like being told that the only way to "care" about something is to support a collectivist intervention; we tend to want to help people rather than engage in social engineering on behalf of groups.

I would agree with you except for the fact that I did not suggest or imply a "collectivist intervention." I asked Joshua for [i]some way to make things better. I did not suggest any particular way, or any general way. Just that some way could be found to make society better.

Donating time and money to charitable causes would be a good idea. Chiding friends to do better would be a good idea. Doing something to help others is what I was aiming at.

But how did he respond? "To make people not be fat, you need to infringe on their freedom to choose what they eat or how they exercise. Protecting people from their own bad habits is fundamentally different than protecting them from plagues."

IOW, nothing.

This is what pisses me off about Conservatives, even you, Paladine. I asked for some way to make society better, to save lives, and the response is "We don't like being told that the only way to "care" about something is to support a collectivist intervention." Your fear of "collectivist intervention" is more important than the problem at hand. Protecting your ideology and freedom is more important than figuring out how to save people's lives.

That's why I flew off the handle at JoshuaD. Worrying about losing his freedom of choice made him ignore the actual problem. And Conservatives do this, again and again.

quote:
You owe him an apology for that, and one for the rest of the forum for having to read that sort of sanctimonious bile.
I'll be happy to apologize (I do hate it when I fly off the handle like that: I always end up looking like as ass [Frown] ), once the discussion moves to what we can do about the problem of decreasing this (and other) dangerous trend, hopefully without the problems of "collectivist intervention," instead of making fun of solutions one doesn't happen to agree with. Because when someone believes that his philosopy trumps humanity, pointing it out isn't "sanctimonious bile."

It's calling it as it is.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think, WS, that the subsequent discussion has made clear that Joshua does at least chide his friends, so it's a bit unfair to insist that he prefers to do nothing.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not interested in defending my own actions in this thread, especially to people like Wayward who know absolutely nothing about me. I will say this: I am certainly not as generous and as kind as I'd like to be, but I'm doing my best, and my best is not bad.

Wayward: I'll gladly accept your apology when you decide to offer it.

The thread was already moving in the direction of talking about how to make people's lives better. My proposal is that we remind people that they have freedom of choice. That, despite how difficult it may be, in the end we can take control of our own lives.

I have seen this message of personal responsibility transform people's lives. It enabled me to transform my life about 5 years ago. It enabled an alcoholic friend of mine transform hers. My girlfriend has made huge steps towards turning her life around in just four months.

When we met, she was working at two dead-end jobs, she was living with a tyrannical grandmother, and she had no idea how to manage her personal finances. She spent all of her earnings on clothes, eating out, drinks, and junk, and paid her bills on her credit card. She drank too often.

I pretty quickly invited her to live with me for a short period because I thought her grandmother was a destabilizing force for the time being. I started trying to highlight the links between the things that made her unhappy and actions she was taking. We began working together to develop a plan for her to stop living in misery.

One month later she left the dead-end jobs.

Two months later she quit drinking and asked me to hold her credit card for her so she wouldn't use it (she hasn't gotten drunk or used the credit card since).

Three months later she got hired at two stores working in the field she wants to work in. She rebuilt the relationship with her grandmother, and now has a healthy relationship rather than one where the grandmother is constantly browbeating her. She similarly changed her interactions with some friends to make the relationships healthier (and has stopped talking to a few other friends).

Four months later (today) she is moving out on her own again and is struggling to begin to understand a personal budget. She is starting to make hard choices about what is important in her life, and what things aren't worth the cost.

I never paid a bill for her. I provided her a home, some food, and a bunch of advice. I always offered my advice freely but without force, and she was always free to reject it.

I agreed with her as she told me about how her up-bringing made her life extremely difficult; it did. She had a horrible history, and she has every excuse for the way things were. But that didn't change the fact that she is the only person who can make her life better. Yes, your life was really rough. I'm sorry for that. But you are the only one who can make it better now.

I don't think a handout would have helped her (either from me, or from the government). To the contrary, it would have allowed her to avoid the reality of the situation: despite her disadvantages, she had to start making the hard decisions to make her life better.

More importantly, the government simply couldn't provide her the level of tough-love, care, tailored advice, and support that she needed to fix her life. You cannot legislate helping people. It's an art, not a science. I'm a computer programmer, and give me fifty psychologists and I couldn't write a set of instructions that will work for even half of the people out there. Mr. Boehner and Mrs. Pelosi certainly can't do it from Washington.

[ July 11, 2011, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For what it's worth, she's Christian (I'm not). Her relationship with God was one of strongest pillars that supported her as she made this transformation.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What we have is too much prosperity. Too much consuming going on. Back in the real depression, almost no one was fat—only the guy in the top hat on the Monopoly board. People had to work hard just to survive. Now our poor people are fatter than anybody else. We obviously have to make everyone poorer. Don't worry. The federal government is working on that.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I provided her a home, some food,
quote:
I don't think a handout would have helped her (either from me, or from the government).
Did providing her with the two most expensive necessities not help her?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken_in_sc:
What we have is too much prosperity. Too much consuming going on. Back in the real depression, almost no one was fat—only the guy in the top hat on the Monopoly board. People had to work hard just to survive. Now our poor people are fatter than anybody else. We obviously have to make everyone poorer. Don't worry. The federal government is working on that.

I know your point is a joke, but it's not far from the truth.

Our problems do stem from our prosperity. Aside from a small set of affluent people in history, no one has faced the level of comfort and safety we currently face.

We really don't know how to handle it. We're like the starving men who, upon rescue, kill themselves because they eat too quickly.

The problems Americans face are really funny problems, but they're also very real. We have too much food, too much entertainment and too much comfort. These things are inherently good things, but like any other good thing, are extremely dangerous in large doses.

I, of course, don't agree with your tongue-in-cheek solution that we need the government to return us to poverty. That would be a bit like refusing to use medicine to help cure a dying man because too much medicine can be deadly.

We need to use the medicine, but use it carefully. We need to accept all of the happiness and comfort around us, but very carefully. We need to develop the discipline to enjoy comforts without allowing them to destroy us.

It is a really funny, and really hard problem.

[ July 11, 2011, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
I provided her a home, some food,
quote:
I don't think a handout would have helped her (either from me, or from the government).
Did providing her with the two most expensive necessities not help her?

She already had them elsewhere. She lived with her grandmother, and room and board were already provided to her.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think a handout would have helped her (either from me, or from the government). To the contrary, it would have allowed her to avoid the reality of the situation: despite her disadvantages, she had to start making the hard decisions to make her life better.
The free room, board, and advice yo provideed her is a better handout than we provide from most people in similar situations. How could she ever have chosen to take advantage of those if you had never offered them? You provided the fundamental framework that made it possible for all the consequent choices, and no amount of willpower would have magically created that for her without your active intervention into the situation. By the time she was make the later choices, the her entire risk/reward structure had been changed to the point where it would no longer take blind faith and super human will to make them and hope for the best.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I provided was a sane environment, love, a calm and objective mind, and a shoulder to cry on.

Government can't provide those things. It's just not possible.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The free room, board, and advice yo provideed her is a better handout
She already had the room and board.

The advice was the bulk of what I offered her. The advice I gave was the advice that you, Ricky, Wayward, PSRT, and others have said (here and in the previous thread) makes me a heartless monster.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
She already had them elsewhere. She lived with her grandmother, and room and board were already provided to her.

You honestly see no fundamental difference between the environment that you offered and the one that her grandmother offered? Why did you even mention it, if you felt that it didn't offer any value?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I provided was a sane environment, love, a calm and objective mind, and a shoulder to cry on.

Government can't provide those things. It's just not possible.

IT can and does provide a calm and objective mind, a shoulder to cry on, often a sane environment. You and her grandmother also freed her from having the economic strain of having to provide room and board.

I fail to see how she didn't have a handout, and how that handout didn't help her.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1