U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-28-2014, 12:18 PM
 
2,038 posts, read 1,948,524 times
Reputation: 3449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpacker View Post
Are you or were you a philosophy major?

Life sucks and is unfair. Deal with it. Don't have children you can't afford. Take responsibility for your actions. Go to college and work hard in a good degree. Start or buy a business. Manage your money wisely. Many of us believe in this...the stealing from others-those who don't whine, be smart, and are willing to put in the effort-to cover for the mistakes and lack of motivation of others is what a lot of people are against. A short-term safety net is fine, as is a safety net for those who truly cannot take (the truly disabled) care of themselves, as is paying taxes for a few things such as roads, education (though it needs to be reformed), police and fire, courts, and even government sponsored R&D grant programs like the NIH, NASA, ect., but other than that, it's about the personal responsibility and freedom.
I agree with this up to the point you think fairness is stealing from others. You think anyone who is struggling is lazy and lacks motivation and personal responsibility? Sure some are but in my experience the people who work the hardest struggle the most because they get paid the least and helping them is the right thing to do even if by helping them you help some lazy people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2014, 01:21 PM
 
Location: land of ahhhs
277 posts, read 298,363 times
Reputation: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama View Post
I'm taking care of it. You're welcome.
I'll second that! Beautifully expressed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 10:23 PM
 
1,198 posts, read 1,575,240 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by fumbling View Post
I agree with this up to the point you think fairness is stealing from others. You think anyone who is struggling is lazy and lacks motivation and personal responsibility? Sure some are but in my experience the people who work the hardest struggle the most because they get paid the least and helping them is the right thing to do even if by helping them you help some lazy people.
That's why I put this:
Quote:
A short-term safety net is fine, as is a safety net for those who truly cannot take (the truly disabled) care of themselves, as is paying taxes for a few things such as roads, education (though it needs to be reformed), police and fire, courts, and even government sponsored R&D grant programs like the NIH, NASA, ect., but other than that, it's about the personal responsibility and freedom.
A short-term safety net is fine with me. Things happen, but at some point, you got to stand on your own two feet and stop blaming others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 10:26 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,667 posts, read 74,628,627 times
Reputation: 48179
they spent it on their adult kids and their babies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 04:14 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,882 posts, read 8,663,647 times
Reputation: 8401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpacker View Post
Are you or were you a philosophy major?
Operations research and management science. There was a time I embraced perspectives as cold and callous as those you advocate. Then I developed a moral center.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama View Post
The assumption that those who have succeeded in life must have "climbed over" someone else to get there is ridiculous.
The comment you replied to didn't imply anything of the sort. Rather, it was in response to expressed perspectives supporting the "climbing over" of those most vulnerable in society, though rationalization of the discounting of the measures society has in place to address such inequities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama View Post
Are some people callous and uncaring? Sure, in all walks of life. MANY MANY unsuccessful people care little for others and will readily hurt/take advantage of them for their own personal gain (which might be financial, emotional, social, etc.). This is human nature and is not exclusive to any one social class.
It isn't about isolated individuals. It is about expressed perspectives, and the manner by which society regards and treats its members - in the context of this thread, the elderly poor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama View Post
This idea that the "most powerful" are all avaricious is what's clueless and childish, and prevents rational discussion of workable solutions to the problems created by inequality.
Only because apologists refuse to view principled perspectives with integrity, instead insulating themselves from the offensive nature of what they support by referring to principled perspectives as "clueless and childish".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 08:14 AM
 
Location: St. George, Utah
756 posts, read 884,152 times
Reputation: 1971
Giving people the freedom to make their own mistakes and live with the results IS a principled approach, in fact. It can (and I would argue should) be coupled with a safety net as Wolfpacker suggests, and which I have rarely if ever heard anyone argue against.

I find the idea that a large number of people are incapable of making good, basic decisions for their own welfare and working to secure that welfare offensive. Offensive is subjective.

I find the idea of acclimating whole swaths of the population to dependency on entitlements unprincipled and immoral.

See, it is subjective. When you discount someone else's viewpoint as "clueless and childish" (I was using the terms from YOUR post), and offensive (implying offensive to all), and lacking integrity---when you try to claim that only your own view is moral, you stop the conversation and make problem solving impossible.

You use lots of fine sounding broad language applying to "groups", not "individuals." But groups ARE made up of individuals. When someone classifies an entire group (the 1%, the "avaricious powerful", "successful people") as being cold and callous, you'd better believe it has an effect on those individuals. Just as if I classify any other individual according to their demographic group.

Individuals express perspectives. SOCIETY IS INDIVIDUALS. As I said in my last post, you say "Society should take care of this..." But are YOU taking care of it? No. I am. Society IS individuals.

I believe the right way is nearly opposite of what you believe, as far as I can tell. But I am a good, generous, person. I'm not perfect, but I give a lot to make sure others are doing okay, both on a societal level and on a very personal level. I've made plenty of personal sacrifices both to get to my level of "personal comfort" AND to make sure someone who needed something that I could provide was cared for. And then I get called names like "cold and callous". Hmmm.

I think it's cold and callous to tell someone they can't take care of themselves. I think it is the second most damaging thing we (as "Society") can tell an individual or a group of people. The most damaging thing we can tell them is that it's someone else's fault. These ideas paralyze people and steal their agency. High expectations and accountability empower people (yes, coupled with opportunity, I understand that). The safety net is for those who truly can't, not those who choose not to.

A society simply cannot continuously reward irresponsible behavior on the backs of those who have worked hard and made careful choices. Does it hurt me, today? No. But it's an untenable system to actively encourage poor planning while punishing responsible planning. I don't want anyone starving to death or hurting--of course. But I don't want the next guy coming up to think he can be irresponsible and there will be no consequences. There is a tipping point for "society" in such a system. It's NOT a moral approach, in my view. It hurts people and takes away their humanity in a most basic sense, on both sides of the equation. Those who think the "government" or "society" will take care of our elderly never get a sense of what that means--how difficult, expensive, and not-so-pretty that can be. They wipe their hands of their individual responsibility to care for others. Those being told they can't or don't have to care for themselves, won't. Their agency, their power as individuals is stolen from them as well, and they are told it will be good enough to end up wards of the state in the end. (As if the money could hold out for everyone, forever, which it can't.)

"Society" is me. I have to take care of others. That's the way I see it. It's not fun or sexy, and it doesn't make me morally superior. It's what needs to be done, and it's done quietly and without waving my arms and telling others what they ought to be doing. This is what integrity means to me. What I hear you saying when you say, "Society should take care of it," is also that I should do it. Are you doing it?

Last edited by Montanama; 08-29-2014 at 09:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 09:25 AM
 
1,198 posts, read 1,575,240 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Operations research and management science. There was a time I embraced perspectives as cold and callous as those you advocate. Then I developed a moral center.

The comment you replied to didn't imply anything of the sort. Rather, it was in response to expressed perspectives supporting the "climbing over" of those most vulnerable in society, though rationalization of the discounting of the measures society has in place to address such inequities.

It isn't about isolated individuals. It is about expressed perspectives, and the manner by which society regards and treats its members - in the context of this thread, the elderly poor.

Only because apologists refuse to view principled perspectives with integrity, instead insulating themselves from the offensive nature of what they support by referring to principled perspectives as "clueless and childish".
Always attack the poster and completely ignore and spin the content because they don't agree with you. How is this moral and taking care of others with "respect" when you cant' even do it yourself because they may not agree with you?

Your morals might not be the same morals that I or others have. It is unethicial to murder someone, but morally, we might not be on the same page in regards things like the idea of a welfare system. If you're going to argue for freedom and choice, then tasking others to be responsible for decisions of others is not freedom and choice. You do drugs...that's fine, but don't whine that others should support you because you couldn't get a job? Stuck in a minimum wage job? Do something about it! Don't whine. Don't have children you can't afford in the first place than blame the "man" because you don't have an education and skills, self control, or are a single parent. Use protection--plenty of other people manage to do it. It's not rocket science. Go to college or a trade skill. Starting a business (and it doesn't have to be this big operation) is cheaper than ever. Risky? Sure, but no guts, no glory, especially if you have little to start with anyways. People who sit around whining about life being unfair or waiting for the government to take care of them are "usually" in that position because they put themselves there. Show me you're trying and responsible, and I'll be happy to give you a leg up. It's why I find the "More Money, Better Education" argument nonsense. Spending more money doesn't automatically increase the education results. Good parents do. Kids who actually go to school do. We have move from a system that financially burdened the middle class all in the name of "poor." We've been spending untold amounts on the "War
of Poverty" for decades now, and nothing has changed. Let's start by fixing the culture first.

Montanama summed it perfectly.

Last edited by Wolfpacker; 08-29-2014 at 09:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 11:27 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,759 posts, read 7,038,572 times
Reputation: 14295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama View Post
The assumption that those who have succeeded in life must have "climbed over" someone else to get there is ridiculous. Are some people callous and uncaring? Sure, in all walks of life. MANY MANY unsuccessful people care little for others and will readily hurt/take advantage of them for their own personal gain (which might be financial, emotional, social, etc.). This is human nature and is not exclusive to any one social class.

Many successful people have created opportunities for others on their way toward and in the wake of their own success. Many successful people care greatly for others and express that with their actions and their checkbooks.

Many successful people come from nothing or not much, reach success by sacrificing and working hard, and still feel responsible for those around them and help as much as they can.

This idea that the "most powerful" are all avaricious is what's clueless and childish, and prevents rational discussion of workable solutions to the problems created by inequality.




It's also the kind of thinking that creates a whole segment of the population (looks like 31%!) who are able to rationalize the expectation that someone else will rescue them when they have failed to plan. Are there extenuating circumstances for some of that group? Of course. Some have faced calamity and financial ruin. I really doubt that's the case for most. Is lack of opportunity one cause? Of course. In equal measure to lack of motivation, among so many other causes.

And of course "we" as a society will have to find a way to bail these people out, for our own good as much as theirs; and those of us who have planned carefully, worked our tails off, and made sacrifices in the now so that our later years can be stable will end up footing the bill while simultaneously being vilified by others (this has been a fun new development of late--pretty confusing to those of us who thought we were making good choices and doing the right things in life), and accused of "callous disregard" when we ask whether people should at some level be held accountable for their own choices, so as not to encourage further self-destructive behavior in others--in our society as a whole.

I personally care for an actual individual who had no plan for retirement and whose children aren't stepping up. It affects my life and my family's life every day. It is my privilege to do so, my joy. It's not as sexy as you make it sound. "Society's overriding obligations" invariably fall on the backs of those who have made responsible, careful choices in their own lives. "Society" is actually people who do the work while others act self-righteous and say "Society should take care of this!"

I'm taking care of it. You're welcome.
Very, very well said

I thought your entire post needed to be repeated!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 11:47 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,759 posts, read 7,038,572 times
Reputation: 14295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpacker View Post
Always attack the poster and completely ignore and spin the content because they don't agree with you. How is this moral and taking care of others with "respect" when you cant' even do it yourself because they may not agree with you?

Your morals might not be the same morals that I or others have. It is unethicial to murder someone, but morally, we might not be on the same page in regards things like the idea of a welfare system. If you're going to argue for freedom and choice, then tasking others to be responsible for decisions of others is not freedom and choice. You do drugs...that's fine, but don't whine that others should support you because you couldn't get a job? Stuck in a minimum wage job? Do something about it! Don't whine. Don't have children you can't afford in the first place than blame the "man" because you don't have an education and skills, self control, or are a single parent. Use protection--plenty of other people manage to do it. It's not rocket science. Go to college or a trade skill. Starting a business (and it doesn't have to be this big operation) is cheaper than ever. Risky? Sure, but no guts, no glory, especially if you have little to start with anyways. People who sit around whining about life being unfair or waiting for the government to take care of them are "usually" in that position because they put themselves there. Show me you're trying and responsible, and I'll be happy to give you a leg up. It's why I find the "More Money, Better Education" argument nonsense. Spending more money doesn't automatically increase the education results. Good parents do. Kids who actually go to school do. We have move from a system that financially burdened the middle class all in the name of "poor." We've been spending untold amounts on the "War
of Poverty" for decades now, and nothing has changed. Let's start by fixing the culture first.

Montanama summed it perfectly.
IMO it's very hard to take the poster to whom you responded in your post here seriously, his/her/its posts remind me of the old saying about how if one's unable to dazzle others with his/her/its brilliance, one can always baffle them with bu!!shi***. With this poster's self-righteous condemnation of most of the other posters on this thread in such "pseudo-intellectual" terms, IMO it's not hard to conclude that while the poster has convinced himself, and may fancy he's convinced others of his moral and intellectual superiority, he's merely a pompous jerk who's actually said nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 12:43 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,871,258 times
Reputation: 11705
It might be worth noting that a certain poster mentioned they were once of the cold callous sorts they now condemn. It us often said that the reformed can be the ones to most condemn the lifestyle they once embraced. I will leave it at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top