You are correct, but I do think that if you can't aford food then you are poor wherever you reside.
On 5 July, 10:34, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
