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.
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.
"Pseudo-intellectuals" are the worst. They use all this jargon and try to sound smart, but what happens, as you noted, is they really say nothing at all. Talking with my dog is more engaging.
i have little sympathy for most financial failures. with few real exceptions they more often than not comitted their own financial suicide by poor choices.lack of motivation, poor planning before certain events even happened and or they chase ghosts as far as waiting for that last job they had to reappear.
that is my own opinion and i couldn't care less if i am called calloused and cold. it is what it is.
Giving people the freedom to make their own mistakes and live with the results IS a principled approach, in fact.
No one has said anything about not giving people the freedom to make their own mistakes. And, no, it is not principled to regard people who make mistakes like human garbage and callously throw them into the trash heap. Such offensively callous perspectives are crafted from selfishness and egoistic avarice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama
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.
Bull. If that were true, the excuses posted elsewhere in your post would be unnecessary. There are myriad examples of people arguing against the social safety net with lame rationalization grounded in trying to marginalize the effect on people they couldn't care less about. Heck, roughly half of all domestic political arguments fit into this category you claim doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama
II 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.
Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on universal ethics espoused by Jesus and Gandhi. Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on corrupt, self-centered "ethics" espoused by Ayn Rand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanama
"Society" is me.
Precisely the kind of perspective that some use to insulate themselves from the moral imperatives of living in society with others.
Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on corrupt, self-centered "ethics" espoused by Ayn Rand.
Ah yes, Miss Ayn Rand and the "virtue of selfishness." Didn't she end "allowing her attorney to enroll her in" Social sSecurity and Medicare? (ref: Scott McConnell, An Oral History of Ayn Rand, 2010)
Perhaps if folks spent more time working on their own situation and less time poking their nose in to trying to figure out what everyone else has they would be in better shape.
We have posters here that spend their time dredging up articles about how bad everyone else is doing and post and repost the same un-helpful dribble over and over almost weekly.
Perhaps if folks spent more time working on their own situation and less time poking their nose in to trying to figure out what everyone else has they would be in better shape.
We have posters here that spend their time dredging up articles about how bad everyone else is doing and post and repost the same un-helpful dribble over and over almost weekly.
I understand your feelings about this, and I do agree to some extent, but the vitriolic nature of the comments against those who aren't positioned as well as others for retirement is an age-old thing on these boards. The original article about 31% having no retirement savings is dismaying, to say the least (if that research is accurate).
What happens when one of these kinds of articles gets posted though is that there is a predictable group of folks who will jump up and, based on an equally dismaying stock set of assumptions, polarize themselves from the "less well to do" camp with the vitriolic blame.
Look, I see many many folks in certain areas hanging out on street corners, doing crack or just smoking and drinking, having babies they cannot afford, collecting this that and the other thing from the gov't, demanding their entitlements, etc etc. That is ONE tier of the folks who are never going to get anywhere because they don't want to or their brains are so fried they simply can't. That's one clearly defined tier you can blame.
Then I see one tier up, the folks who are only mildly motivated and had chances they could have taken but didn't, they were a bit "lazy." That's another tier you can blame, but there are some complex factors in this group.
The next one up starts to get more complicated—that's the one in which folks honestly wanted to be solidly in the middle class and work(ed) their butts off trying to make it happen. They may have done a very natural human thing (oh no!) and started a family, and with their spouses worked hard to get into housing and provide education for their kids and still they struggle. They may have limited or no resources for higher education, may not be trained (and socially networked) for the highest paying jobs, and so their economic condition stagnates or deteriorates depending on the greater economy. This is a tier that you love to glump in with the lower two tiers, and here is where your fondest assumptions about humanity break down.
The next tier up is the successful tier—successful through some combination of education, hard work, and social confidence and networking. Sure some of these folks share the rags to riches story, but they for unknown reasons (and it's not the hard work theory) managed to rise above the previous tier in their success. Those in this group are the ones most likely to point fingers and play the blame game (if I did it anyone can do it). Some in this group may be at times perilously close to dropping down a tier or two, depending on the success in holding their jobs, getting promotions, and increasing their investments. Those in this group who are successful can well afford to lend a hand up to those in the lower tiers who honestly want to do better. Some do.
The top tier is old money, those on trust funds, those whose wealth is due in part to inheritances, etc. Sure they may work but they do that on top of the foundation of complete security. Strangely enough, I've seen people in this category who are actually more understanding of and caring for the bottom tiers. These are the philanthropists and humanists who are likely to start foundations and other enterprises to actually help others. I rarely see a finger-pointer among the people I have known and worked with in this category, they seem genuinely interested in the human condition and betterment, even for those in jail.
It's a broad spectrum of individuals and situations in our society, and truly wanting to understand the socioeconomic conditions of elders requires a bit more than summarily dismissing a huge swath of the population based on shallow assumptions.
No one has said anything about not giving people the freedom to make their own mistakes. And, no, it is not principled to regard people who make mistakes like human garbage and callously throw them into the trash heap. Such offensively callous perspectives are crafted from selfishness and egoistic avarice.
Bull. If that were true, the excuses posted elsewhere in your post would be unnecessary. There are myriad examples of people arguing against the social safety net with lame rationalization grounded in trying to marginalize the effect on people they couldn't care less about. Heck, roughly half of all domestic political arguments fit into this category you claim doesn't exist.
Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on universal ethics espoused by Jesus and Gandhi. Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on corrupt, self-centered "ethics" espoused by Ayn Rand.
Precisely the kind of perspective that some use to insulate themselves from the moral imperatives of living in society with others.
Your vague theorizing about "moral imperatives" and "offensively callous perspectives" and "egoistic avarice" leaves me wondering exactly what you would propose politically and economically to improve the safety net in this country, which I gather you feel to be inadequate. (My point ignores for the moment the issue of your vague theorizing being offensively arrogant, moralizing, haughty, supercilious, and sneering. How dare we take issue with you, since you have Jesus and Gandhi on your side? How do you expect to convince anyone of your views with the nauseating and off-putting approach you have chosen? He who announces loudly and repeatedly that he is holier than his opponents in debate cannot be taken seriously.)
Last edited by Escort Rider; 08-30-2014 at 07:24 AM..
Your vague theorizing about "moral imperatives" and "offensively callous perspectives" and "egoistic avarice" leave me wondering exactly what you would propose politically and economically to improve the safety net in this country, which I gather you feel to be inadequate. (My point ignores for the moment the issue of your vague theorizing being offensively arrogant, moralizing, haughty, supercilious, and sneering. How dare we take issue with you, since you have Jesus and Gandhi on your side? How do you expect to convince anyone of your views with the nauseating and off-putting approach you have chosen? He who announces loudly and repeatedly that he is holier than his opponents in debate cannot be taken seriously.)
ther truth is how you end up financially is usually a product of either your own control or lack of taking control.
while the trifecta from hell gets many in life , illness-divorce and job loss it is usually not the events themselves that ruin people.
it is usually poor choices,poor planning and bad decisions both early on leading up to those events and after those events that left them in that shape.
while paying for a family of i-phones perhaps not beefing up emergency savings instead was a poor choice.
this is why in any similiar situation you will always have those that still thrive and those that fail.
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.
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.
Didn't she end "allowing her attorney to enroll her in" Social sSecurity and Medicare? (ref: Scott McConnell, An Oral History of Ayn Rand, 2010)
