" I understand the hardships of poor people." You do, Don, if you say so. But our understanding of the poor, of poverty as existential phenomena played out in the human mind, definitely takes us back to the purest in Marx' thought : that, it qualifies, shapes and determines, the human mind, in ways and manner that one who is not ( poor ) will find very very difficult, if not impossible, to understand and appreciate.
Such understanding usually causes us to lose our propensity to judge the ( poor ) others, for one, and to pronounce a lot empathetically on Government welfare programmes targeted at the poor in our society, for another. On Jul 5, 5:16 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > I tend to be flippant at times. I wasn't, of course, referring to any > specific persons in my 'loser parents' remarks. I understand the > hardships of poor people. Much of my family is from rural Alabama and > are 'poor.' Nobody is starving over there. These are country people > and they work hard. They grow their own food, they go to church and > help the old, the sick and the helpless. Salt of the earth. When I > visit, I eat like a king; I love southern cooking. Because of this > self-dependence, the matriarch(my mother's sister) has never been on > welfare. The same can't be said for some of her grandchildren but > when they visit(a lot) they always have plenty of food. It's the > basic responsibility of the parent. Feed and cloth the kids. If > someone isn't taking care of this then they can't handle the > responsibility and CPS(or the > grandparents/sister/brother/friend/neighbor) must take charge. I > suppose one can refer to this as 'destroying the family' but I think > what's best for the kids is more important. > > Sickness can ruin the bank account. I get it. I feel compassion for > them. They did what they had to do. When the money is gone there are > services available to help them. It takes work and research and > networking but help can be found. It will be harder now due to the > recession but it can be done. Tenacity has it's rewards and there's > nothing like a sick kid to galvanize normally apathetic people into > lending a hand. This is why there is so much fraud involved in the > health care industry. This is also why it is so hard to get help; you > must convince people you're not scamming them. The burden of proof > lies with you and it's difficult sometimes. People will say they're > sorry and say no. You can't accept 'no.' You keep chugging away > until they give you what you need or steer you to someone who can. > > The problem with socialized medicine is the overall quality will > suffer. It will also be harder to get help from benefactors(wealthy > people) because it's their tax money being confiscated to pay for it. > They'll look at you and your problems and feel compassion but send you > off to use your 'free' health care. > > Everything is hunky-dory until somebody gets sick. It's sad how many > people actually think it's someone else's responsibility to take care > of them or their kids when this happens. Asking or begging for > help(when it involves your kids, dignity goes out the window) is one > thing. Demanding and expecting is another. It's contemptible. We > must get away from this notion that the world owes you a living and > get people to take responsibility for themselves and their families. > More welfare or 'free lunches' are not the answer. > > dj > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:43 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: > > Don I know the logic is faulty, the problem is it is more true than I would > > like to amit,, to quote mey sister who is staunchly anti abortion.. "I can > > only support one issue at a time." > > Personally I am for the womans right to chose and I will support her no > > matter what her choice is. > > > As for no good loser parents go, I do know parents that have sold everything > > they had to take care of family, and we are talking in excess of > > $2,500,000.oo paying medical bills, ending up getting assistance to keep the > > family alive... talk about loser parents ,, they lost everything. > > I think it is called greed. > > Allan > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> There is faulty logic here. You are assuming that if one opposes > >> abortion then one also opposes feeding starving children. These are > >> not mutually exclusive ideals. Far from it in fact. What I see > >> happening is some conservatives believe people should take > >> responsibility for their children. Wither that is in the womb or at > >> home making sure they get enough to eat. If the kids are coming to > >> school starving then CPS takes them away from their no good piece of > >> garbage useless parents. The kids get fed and get out from under > >> their loser parents. Everybody wins. > > >> It would be like me saying since you(example here, keep pantyhose on) > >> favor abortion then you must want to murder all hungry children. See, > >> makes no since whatsoever. > > >> For the record, I think women should be in control of their own > >> bodies. I also think they should do it without tax payer money. So > >> I'm pro-choice, anti-enable. Lunch at my kids school is a buck 75. > >> If their parents can't afford that on their welfare checks something > >> is very, very hinky and CPS should be involved. > > >> dj > > >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:16 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Those that are anti abortion and don't rant on about the starving > >> > children. > >> > that is very easy to explain. abortion they can rant about and it cost > >> > them > >> > very little, maybe a small donation and a little time, now starving > >> > children on the other hand takes a major commitment and to do it would > >> > require a major out lay of cash. as well as a major outlay of time.. so > >> > the > >> > out lay of money and time are the major factors in the choice of what to > >> > support. > >> > Allan > > >> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:50 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > > >> >> Lee - an interesting thread; thanks for initiating it. > >> >> Many have tried to understand why there is evil in this world, > >> >> How can it be reconciled with an all powerful, all good God. In all > >> >> cases known to me the reasoning looks at the question from afar, much > >> >> as another god might look at it. The answer usually begins by setting > >> >> up a continuum such as murder to injury to no harm, and labels one end > >> >> of the continuum evil. It then struggles with reconciling the > >> >> continuum, or at least an end of it, with an omniscient God. > >> >> What I proposed as a definition of evil proceeds from within, > >> >> from the effect the evil has on those involved with it. Thus, I > >> >> proposed that an evil act is one that drives us together, one that > >> >> makes us desperate for the comfort of other human beings. Doing this I > >> >> believe presents a fair description of the effect of evil, while at > >> >> the same time revealing the reason for evil - to make us desperate for > >> >> the comfort of others. Of course I don't think that to be bad - I > >> >> didn't label the evil and good definitions I proposed as either > >> >> yeilding good or bad results. (But I do think that in the sense I > >> >> propose evil has a good effect and the result of good as I define it > >> >> is bad - which of course is contra to what most of the others in this > >> >> thread seem to think.) > >> >> Again, how's that for strange? Jim > > >> >> On Jul 1, 2:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > That's the point Jim. In all of the examples you listed it is pretty > >> >> > much understood by the majority that these acts are considered not > >> >> > good. Yes of course such acts do come under normal human behavoiur > >> >> > but only in so much as normal humans have commited such acs. However > >> >> > if we consider what is normal to be what the majority agree's then > >> >> > murder is not as normal as it would seem. > > >> >> > Indeed I must confess that part of my reason for creating this thread > >> >> > is to try to understand the argument against a creator God for the > >> >> > reason of the existance of evil. > > >> >> > I'm still nto getting it though. Why is it a bad thing that we seek > >> >> > out the company of each other? Also to do so does not necisarily > >> >> > mean > >> >> > that we are not competent on our own, without others of our species > >> >> > to > >> >> > help. > > >> >> > On 30 June, 10:54, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > Lee - thanks for considering my proposed definition. You ask: How > >> >> > > can > >> >> > > normal human behavior be defined as evil? I suspect that it largely > >> >> > > is > >> >> > > a matter of viewpoint. Surely the KKK didn't consider lynching > >> >> > > negroes > >> >> > > evil; Nor did Hitler consider the holocaust evil, or the Romans > >> >> > > crucifiction of the Christians, or maybe even a mother's murder of > >> >> > > a > >> >> > > molester of her child. I expect you have heard of the theodicy > >> >> > > problem: given an all powerful, all good God, why does evil exist > >> >> > > in > >> >> > > this world? Many have proposed their answer to this question. The > >> >> > > answers are summarized in Philosophies for Dummies - 1. All evil is > >> >> > > punishment for sin. 2. All evil results from the misuse of free > >> >> > > will. > >> >> > > 3. Evil requires a moral choice which leads to soul building. 4. > >> >> > > Some > >> >> > > combination of 1-3. > >> >> > > Instead of these views of evil from afar, I propose a view of > >> >> > > evil > >> >> > > from within the moment. It's purpose and function is to bring us > >> >> > > together. In that sense it is an antidote to good, which as I said > >> >> > > tends to let us think that we've got it made and need no one. > >> >> > > Aren't > >> >> > > these responses to good and evil the normal human responses.? I > >> >> > > think > >> >> > > so. How's that for strange? > > >> >> > > On Jun 29, 2:49 am, "[email protected]" > >> >> > > <[email protected]> > >> >> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > That's a strange way of seeing it Jim. > > >> >> > > > I would think that as our speices is undeniably social then > >> >> > > > incorperated in the norm is the need for human contact, as such > >> >> > > > how > >> >> > > > can what can only be considered normal behavour stand up to being > >> >> > > > defined as evil? > > >> >> > > > On 27 June, 22:01, retiredjim34 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
