Inconsistencies of Victim-Blaming (employment, generations, border, how much)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by LoveMiiorHateMii

Well if there is free tuition I'll be first in line...can you tell me where to apply...because at this point all my options are running loooooow...
and I work two jobs now that school is out so whats your point?

I still don't make enough to cover my tuition! my dad doesn't have a car because he helps to pay my tuition plus my 500 rent to live in my apt.....that does not include food, transportation, water ,gas and electric bill...so yes I am what you can consider poor...but its not by choice i know that much!!!!!!!

but just because you give free tuition does not make all the problems poor people face go away...because i never heard of college offering free food books and a place to stay along with that!

I don't get it. Are you going to college out of town? Was there no college in your hometown that you could attend and live at home? Two can't really live as cheaply as one, but they can do it for a lot less than paying two rents, utilities, etc.

In response to your previous post about college not always being the answer -- I certainly think there is a lot of truth to that. Young people need to be counseled to know what they can expect from a college degree in a certain major. Is that geology degree so desireable that the student won't mind working as a secretary afterward? If so, that's fine. If financial security is more paramount than personal edification, then the student needs to think about getting a degree in something marketable. Or skip college altogether if there is not a strong passion for it, and find a job that is enjoyable or offers the possibility of advancement over time.

I don't really think there are a lot of those jobs around that don't require a college education. Some jobs require a college degree in just about anything to show you are intelligent.

A lot of people just don't think of the future in realistic terms. Most children from problem backgrounds were never taught life skills. I certainly never knew how to manage money or even how to open a bank account, much less balance a checkbook! I'd like to see high schools offer more practical education in life skills.

I think the schools are asked to do an awful lot now. I think you can learn how to do the above without a course in high school.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by PPG

According to posts in previous pages, none of the conservatives have even admited to people being less fortunate. I guess they utter "get it together lazy bum" as they donate money into the can.

I beg to differ. I, as a fiscal conservative, previously stated that I directly help some who are deserving of help, insinuating that there are those less fortunate but who continue to try to help themselves instead of relying upon the government to extort it from total strangers.

[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by saganista

No, they are not. Which is why anecdotal data are universally shunned in serious analysis. It is one of the weaknesses of everyday right-wing thinking that the distinction between anecdotes and data is not at all well understood.

OK, I just provided an anecdote about my grandfather becoming a success by working his way up in a time where there were far fewer opportunities than today. How is that not proof?

Horse-hockey excusification. All pyramids grow more narrow toward the top. By definition, many who start will be excluded from the finish without regard to the levels of their skill or determination. This is simply a matter of the difference between fanstasy and reality.

Your excuses are the ones that seem to be mounting. Having a little drive and desire can take you a long way in this world. Making excuses and counting on others to do things for you is too much aof a reality today.

And during his tenure as President of the Bank, how many others were able to serve as President of the Bank? It seems to me that, entirely contrary to your assertion, that opportunity was specifically BARRED to everyone else over some considerable period of time without regard of any sort to their levels of education and sacrifice. No amount of will whatsoever would have been sufficient to the task until such time as the old man decided to retire, likely arranging with the Board for his hand-picked successor (son-in-law?) to move into the job in his place.

Well considering that there is always ONE President of a Bank, I am going to say that no one else served there as one while he was in office. The important point that you are missing is that he worked his way up FROM NOTHING, again, in a time when there were fewer opportunities and made it as far as the President of a bank. I am not saying everyone should aspire to that level, as it may not be their forte or calling. But there are cetainly plenty of opportunities for others out there to achieve something similar. And no, he did not arrange for a hand picked successor to take over as much as your little slanted liberal vision makes you think that that is the way ALL business is run. He was elected by a board and they elected someone after him. Wow, talk about stereotyping.

Why would it be ridiculous? It's the very argument that right-wingers put forward every day...

Sorry, never heard that one. But a physical capability and a mental capability are 2 different things. Now, off to the library with you to practice the 4 minute comic read!

[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by saganista

What part of KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED is consistent with a normal sex life?


Missed, do you think? You think we parents and grandparents are overlooking something about sex? But since you all like the word so much, are there consequences to the making of fraudulent, baseless assumptions, or does the right give itself a free pass on all that???

What?

It is called self control and if one does not wish to have bad things happen to them, they have to have a little discipline in their lives. If this means abstaining from sex until they are ready for any unforseen consequences, then so be it.

You may wish to enable them with you short sighted thinking, but some of understand what being responsible is.

[chielgirl]

Where would the information about donations made by republicans and democrats come from? Who is getting that information? How is it being compiled? Are the donators self-identifying?

I give a considerable amount to charities. How is my information being distilled? Am I being counted by my political affiliation? If so, how?

[spunky1]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I beg to differ. I, as a fiscal conservative, previously stated that I directly help some who are deserving of help, insinuating that there are those less fortunate but who continue to try to help themselves instead of relying upon the government to extort it from total strangers.

Excellent post. And I agree 100%. I happily help the less fortunate.

And I would love to see a breakdown between convervative and liberals regarding giving. I think it might be quite eye-opening!

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

10 year olds can have sex and multiply, I guess you think thats ok? I guess 40 year old men can have sex with 12 year olds, thats ok? blah, blah, blah.. Just because its possible to spread your legs at 10, doesnt mean you should, or are you trying to argue that they shouldnt keep their legs closed?

Another lane-change without signalling. When did we begin to talk about 10-year olds?

Originally Posted by pghquest

yeah, extreme instances, and obviously (I hope) you agree that these are unacceptable.

Well, I would certainly agree that they are irrelevant to the point under discussion.

Originally Posted by pghquest

I'm noticing a pattern with those on the left...

And I'm noticing a pattern among some to retreat into glittering generalities. The usual basis for this is to paint a panorama so broad that if anyone should choose to complain over it, there are always those outliers that can be pointed in an attempt to refute. A criticism might explain the facts of 95% of all observations, but as long as you've worked with a broad enough brush, there will always be anecdotes to be drawn from the remaining 5% that can be used as a shield. And if one such bubble is burst, one can always come up with another one. Argument from the outliers is a standard technique on the right. It is also completely dishonest.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Jobs do still exist in America, and if we kicked out the illegal aliens, we'd have such a huge abundance of jobs, that wages would be much higher then minimum wage, people could afford their own insurance and the need to depend on government programs would drop substantially.

Oh, please. No one is going to kick out all the illegal aliens. And for every one we do kick out, a new one will arrive. Probably in the company of his cousin. Meanwhile, the land of sugar plums and fairies that you envision an alien-free world to be does not exist. If you could wave some magic wand and disappear them all, what you would have would be a collapse in the agriculture, construction, tourist, and service industries. Prices would skyrocket. Wages and workforces would have to be cut in order to maintain profitability. The government would have to step in with massive relief programs. A frenzied right-wing would try to blame it all on Clinton. The real world is very different from the one that right-wingers like to imagine.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Ironic that most of the left want amnesty, and then scream that people cant succeed, or is it that the government doesnt want them to? mmmm

Last I checked, illegal aliens (i.e., undocumented residents) were still classified as people. And while I can't speak for the left in its entirety, I am certainly not screaming that people can't succeed. I live in the middle of thousands of succeeders. And they come from all sorts of backgrounds. What I deplore is the abandonment by the right of any obligation other than that to self on the fictitious grounds that those others (through their various and sundry personal shortcomings and character flaws) all brought their struggles upon themselves and are thus only getting what they deserve. To put it succinctly, this theory is a load of crap.

[spunky1]

Originally Posted by pghquest

And who says they are not helping them do it? Last I checked, the left state that the left are to poor to help, unable to get ahead.. but someone is donating.. I wonder who it could be?

Per ABC
Conservatives charitably donate 30% more than liberals as a whole?

abcnews.go.com — ABC reports on charitable donations: "It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election... Turns out conservatives give about 30 percent more, [despite] making less money." Hopefully both can give more.

My my. How intersting. Thanks for the information.

[pghquest]

Another lane-change without signalling. When did we begin to talk about 10-year olds?
The minute you started talking about it being IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible.

Well, I would certainly agree that they are irrelevant to the point under discussion.
nice to know your the police of discussion here, and only you can determine whats of value.

And I'm noticing a pattern among some to retreat into glittering generalities. The usual basis for this is to paint a panorama so broad that if anyone should choose to complain over it, there are always those outliers that can be pointed in an attempt to refute. A criticism might explain the facts of 95% of all observations, but as long as you've worked with a broad enough brush, there will always be anecdotes to be drawn from the remaining 5% that can be used as a shield. And if one such bubble is burst, one can always come up with another one. Argument from the outliers is a standard technique on the right. It is also completely dishonest.
Whats the matter, are you insulted by the truth that you cant refute the argument with facts? Have nothing left to do but make up percentages that dont exist. Guess as long as you feel good go for it, but please next time put a disclamer that looks like, WARNING, WARNING, made up percentage and fact following...

Oh, please. No one is going to kick out all the illegal aliens. And for every one we do kick out, a new one will arrive. Probably in the company of his cousin. Meanwhile, the land of sugar plums and fairies that you envision an alien-free world to be does not exist. If you could wave some magic wand and disappear them all, what you would have would be a collapse in the agriculture, construction, tourist, and service industries. Prices would skyrocket. Wages and workforces would have to be cut in order to maintain profitability. The government would have to step in with massive relief programs. A frenzied right-wing would try to blame it all on Clinton. The real world is very different from the one that right-wingers like to imagine.
I dont recall blaming it on Clinton (or even mentioning his name), I note how you've just changed lanes without signaling. Please move back to the proper slow lane so the conservatives who work to going faster can.

Last I checked, illegal aliens (i.e., undocumented residents) were still classified as people. And while I can't speak for the left in its entirety, I am certainly not screaming that people can't succeed. I live in the middle of thousands of succeeders. And they come from all sorts of backgrounds. What I deplore is the abandonment by the right of any obligation other than that to self on the fictitious grounds that those others (through their various and sundry personal shortcomings and character flaws) all brought their struggles upon themselves and are thus only getting what they deserve. To put it succinctly, this theory is a load of crap.
Last time I check, the right makes less then those on the left, and donate more (Per ABC, which is far from right wing).. Where is the abandonment of obligations? Where is there one person who leans right, on this WHOLE thread, in abandonment of their obgligations? Would this right wing "generalization", based upon nothing but speculation, be anything like the left wing "generalization"attack up top that you just accused me of doing. Sorry, I didnt realise that only the left were allowed to generalize based upon a lack of facts.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by chattypatty

Saganista, what needs to happen is a dramatic attitude change in our country concerning personal responsibility and the achievement of one's potential. It serves no good purpose to send the relentless message that The Man is an evil oppressor, and that if you are poor and uneducated, it is through no fault of your own.

I would disagree. Emphatically. We are, in our increasing national misery, awash in a sea of me-me-me personal responsibility freaks. What we need is a dramatic change in attitudes with regard to social responsibility and the potential benefits that cooperation has to offer all of us. It serves no good purpose to send the relentless message that the less fortunate are bad people who are innately unworthy of being given a helping hand. Especially when the real reason boils down to little more than I've got mine or am busy getting it, and the rest of you can just bugger off.

Originally Posted by chattypatty

My life was very hard. I am not asking for you to strike up the violins.

Okay, no violins. But there were millions who were where you were back in the day. How many were able to come along with you? There are millions who are there right now. What mechanism will determine which rather few of those will manage to traverse the path that you have? Will it be pluck, or will it be luck? Does it really matter which it is if the numbers who can accomplish it by any means remain tiny? Take a look at the income disparity and economic mobility numbers over the past ten years. The picture isn't black, merely a really dark shade of gray. Your personal story may be notable and is certainly praiseworthy. But by the numbers, you are an outlier. In another arena entirely, outliers experience a spontaneous remission from cancer. This does not argue for refusal of treatment should one ever be diagnosed with that disease.

Originally Posted by chattypatty

I'm sorry, but, I really do believe that the only thing holding the downtrodden down is their own fatalistic outlook, and they get that from the relentless messages that they are helpless and the victims of injustice, messages sent by well-meaning liberals.

So all these problems then could actually be solved by Madison Avenue? If only we would broadcast messages of hope and encouragement to the poor as often as we do to sufferers from Erectile Disfunction, all would soon be on the upswing? I'm sorry, but this idea seems hopelessly naive to me.

Originally Posted by chattypatty

When someone is really struggling, they DO NOT NEED TO HEAR that everything is against them, that they are up against insurmountable odds, that society is just waiting to take advantage of them, that the rich are evil and oppressive, etc.

Would it make any difference if any of those things were true? If some were true, are you saying that we should lie about it for the good of society?

Originally Posted by chattypatty

They need to hear words of encouragement and also, when appropriate, firm words of guidance and disapproval. OMG, yes, I said that word, "disapproval." Sometimes negative incentives are effective.

Isn't this a bit paternalistic when your points are built around encouraging personal responsibility? I remember the guidance, disapproval, and negative incentive of being told to go stand in the corner when I misbehaved in the third grade. Look how I turned out. Be careful what you wish for.

Originally Posted by chattypatty

We also need to return the concept of shame to our society. Shame is necessary as a motivator and as a voice of our conscience.

Yes, I've long been asking the right-wing whether it's the case that they simply have no shame. Look at the mess that's been created. It's everywhere. And how many feel the shame sufficiently to admit to and apologize for the roles they played in promoting it? Darned few. They too are the outliers, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by chattypatty

Now, shouldn't she be a crack ho with 5 children by 5 different baby daddies, all in prison now? That's what the liberal outlook would tell you should happen. She decided she wanted a different kind of life and yes, Saganista, it really is that simple: make a decision.

If it were that simple, it would be accomplished far more frequently. There are not many girls who grow up aspiring to be crack ho's. Ballerina maybe, crack ho probably not. The liberal outlook might well say that despite this, far too many girls are ending up as crack ho's, and even if for no other reason, since it's the case that these end up costing society a lot of money, maybe we should take a look at ways in which we might all cooperate to reduce the incidence of this costly crack ho outcome. The right-wing says no we shouldn't because a few girls did end up as ballerinas. Great.