You are correct Vam. Our poor, and by that I mean those in North America(I think a family of four making less then 24,000/yr) aren't really poor by international standards. I was talking about the poor I know. Ironically, as we move toward socialism, they will become more dependent and poorer then ever. The pot bellied, malnourished kids from other countries I've little empathy with because, as you say, I can't fathom their circumstances. I understand India has a serious problem with this. Despite all the complaining from Chomski types, we really don't have much of a problem like that here in the States. Hunger exists, of course, but not near as much here as in other places. We're a fat country in more ways then one.
dj On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Vamadevananda<[email protected]> wrote: > > " 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
