My parents were very resourceful and intelligent people. My father began teaching me a trade when I was 12. By the time I graduated from high school I was one of the best in my profession. Until 2000 when my profession died, I interviewed employers for a job. Everybody doesn't have that sort of beginning in life, though; and in that respect, I was lucky. It opened doors for me that were locked for most others. They also taught me to see life through the eyes of others, an endeavor that would serve to teach you a little of that reality you seem to be unaware of. .
It would be nice if "others" were all identical. Reality exists in many forms, and I may be more aware than you think. We could go on citing examples of individual cases perpetually, which only goes to show that a single solution is unlikely to be the best one, and is the solution that allows for the most corruption to occur.
If the possibility of corruption is going to inhibit legislating solutions to problems, we will never have any solutions. .
Then we should accept corruption? The default result of taking corruption into account does not have to be never finding any solutions, but instead finding better solutions, perhaps with additional difficulty posed by those who would benefit from corruption.
The thing is that the greatest impact on a persons life is into which socio-economic class they're born into, in other words inequality. In education for example it give a tremendous advantage. Extra wealth can buy a better education, it can purchase pre-school places, it can mean a parent been able to stay at home with the child, it means been able to buy into an area with good schools, it means been able to afford educational trips, it means that private tutoring and be paid for or summer schools, it means having the ability to pay for private schools with small class sizes personal tuition and top of the range facilities (where they can make connections that can help them in the future), it means that educational tools are available or can be bought and so on. And the thing is that educated parents more often than not produce educated children and not all of that is conscious education a lot of what children learn is picked up by just watching and listening what is going on around them (their environment). So even before normal formal education begins those from higher socio-economic groups have an advantage and wealth can mean keeping that advantage. Now those that might want to play down the problems associated with an unequal society might claim they have neither the time nor energy to debate such issue but that doesn’t mean they go away.
Indie Why do you thing that is the essence of what I said, sorry but I think that is coming from your own prejudices rather than what I’ve stated. I’ll try and explain again but you really need to make an effort to understand rather than just giving in and making more excuses about not having the time etc. OK? If you haven’t got the resources you are at a disadvantage when compared to those that do have access to resources. In education extra wealth can buy a better education, it can purchase pre-school places, it can mean a parent been able to stay at home with the child, it means been able to buy into an area with good schools, it means been able to afford educational trips, it means that private tutoring and be paid for or summer schools, it means having the ability to pay for private schools with small class sizes personal tuition and top of the range facilities (where they can make connections that can help them in the future), it means that educational tools are available or can be bought and so on. And the thing is that educated parents more often than not produce educated children and not all of that is conscious education a lot of what children learn is picked up by just watching and listening what is going on around them (their environment). Someone born into poverty can be a wonderful parent, but they are likely not to be as educated as someone further up the socio-economic ladder (for the reasons stated) and the child because they are unlikely to have access to the resources stated above is also unlike to fulfil their educational potential, its possible but the disadvantages weigh against it.
I could ask you the same question, as you base your responses to your interpretations of what I state. If a poor, wealth wise, parent lacks the resources, money, to provide their offspring with the same advantages as a wealthy person who should bear the burden of blame? The wealthy person for having wealth greater than the poor person, or the poor person for having the child? In either case it is the child who ultimately bears the suffering as a result. Is it a wise or an unwise decision to bring into existence a life one is incapable of providing the needs of?
Indie Well sorry to say simplistic and naive is once again going to make an airing since I can’t think of another way of putting it in relation to your reply. You are faced with a complex issue and your only response is a flippant – ‘yeah well then they shouldn’t have kids then should they’ - it’s not exactly a mature and thought through position is it? So how are you to bring this about, magic wand, laws forbidding certain groups to have children, take kids away from people below a certain wealth qualification? *
On blame. No person can choose who they are going to be born to, so the baby cannot be blamed for been born into riches or poverty, it can’t even be blame for the decisions of the parents to have it. But by the same token neither can if be commended. A child born into poverty did nothing to deserve the disadvantages associated with it but also the child born into wealth did nothing to deserve the advantages it receives. The question then arises is it justified for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged. *
Are you asking questions or attempting to imply that I've suggested what you're asking? You've identified what you claim to be a problem, so what do you suggest as a solution?
Indie I’m asking if you honestly think that just stating that poor people should not have children is a rational and realist answer to the issues been raised? But this is the thing - this is an argument over the identification of a problem – that of advantage and disadvantage - are you saying that you now believe that such a problem exists and needs a solution? Because when you say - ‘claim to be a problem’ – it would seem to indicate that you are not sure there is one and that begs the question why not? It’s not much point in me giving solutions if I’m unsure you actually believe there is a problem to be solved, since my time would be better spent working out why. In a why it seems to me you are trying to actually get out of that debate by starting another. (I’ve posted on educational reform before here, I’ll try and dig it out and if not write it again)
I leave the decision of having or not having children to the individuals, and empathize with the children who begin life with the disadvantages that I personally would not bring about. At the same time I feel that I should retain the right to respond, should I desire, through choice of my own and not because government mandates it. I admit that a problem exists for the individuals who are affected, but don't feel that government has a right to make it everyones problem. Primarily I am most interested in the problems which affect my immediate family, and after that my extended family, neighbors, and friends. Those are the ones who have the greatest effect on my life, and deserve my greatest attention. You can build a strong society only when the members of the society recognize that it is the individual members of their society that they must ultimately rely upon, and not some centralized government who promotes the view that it has no choice but to force the greedy to care for you. I don't accept it to be fact that humans are not charitable, and that government has to fill that role. If that's your position we have little means of reaching any agreement on a solution.
Ain't that the truth. I think the big money and power brokers would be truly amazed at what would happen to their bankrolls if the poor and working poor got up and left the room. Meant to reply to a message on page 2. Probably doesn't make sense as it stands.
I think the poor and working poor would be the ones most affected. Assuming you mean to stop working, they would be left with no income and government would in turn lose its source of money to provide them. Self inflicted harm to get attention?
Indie In other words you haven’t got a clue what to do about the issue, fine but shouldn’t you be asking yourself why you have no answer? Again you don’t know and again shouldn’t you be asking yourself why? I mean we are talking about people within your community who are part of your society why isn’t the issue everyone’s problem? [/quote]Primarily I am most interested in the problems which affect my immediate family, and after that my extended family, neighbors, and friends. Those are the ones who have the greatest effect on my life, and deserve my greatest attention. [/quote] And once more this basically means you’re going to ignore the issue because you don’t know what to do about it, and again I wonder why you’re not asking yourself why? So you think greed is good? The rest of it comes across as another slogan of little substance. A society is made up of individuals within a community of individuals, and virtually every community has some form of government and in democratic forms of government the government represents the wishes of the community of individuals. Some are charitable some are not and the ones that do give, give to variable degrees, and they often give in line with there prejudices or beliefs. All that means is that money can go to places where it isn’t needed while not going to where it is. For example someone who lives in a well to do area might only give to family, neighbours, and friends, who are all basically all well to do but completely ignore giving to a more poverty stricken area within his own community that actually needs the charity more. This maybe why although Americans give to charities the US still has such high levels of poverty and one of the highest levels of infant mortality among developed nations and the lowest levels of preschool access.
Primarily I am most interested in the problems which affect my immediate family, and after that my extended family, neighbors, and friends. Those are the ones who have the greatest effect on my life, and deserve my greatest attention. [/quote] And once more this basically means you’re going to ignore the issue because you don’t know what to do about it, and again I wonder why you’re not asking yourself why? So you think greed is good? The rest of it comes across as another slogan of little substance. A society is made up of individuals within a community of individuals, and virtually every community has some form of government and in democratic forms of government the government represents the wishes of the community of individuals. Some are charitable some are not and the ones that do give, give to variable degrees, and they often give in line with there prejudices or beliefs. All that means is that money can go to places where it isn’t needed while not going to where it is. For example someone who lives in a well to do area might only give to family, neighbours, and friends, who are all basically all well to do but completely ignore giving to a more poverty stricken area within his own community that actually needs the charity more. This maybe why although Americans give to charities the US still has such high levels of poverty and one of the highest levels of infant mortality among developed nations and the lowest levels of preschool access. [/QUOTE] 1. Not at all, it's a problem that I refrain from creating. 2. The problem doesn't exist in my community. Although it may be an issue in your community, it isn't in mine. Are you trying to incorporate my community into yours? I accept responsibility for problems of my own creation, and have no problem giving assistance to those in my community in ways I find acceptable and productive. Are you a proponent of a "one world" government? I look at the definition of a community as a small group of closely interrelated individuals, and a state or nation as a superset of communities less closely interrelated but with some common goals. The fact that some of our necessities are made available by those outside our communities does not make them a part of our communities, but may make them necessary trade partners. 3. I don't dwell on what others have, that only leads to envy and jealousy. 4. Even if that would be the case I prefer choice over force. I don't look at charity or welfare as a solution to poverty, do you? The infant mortality rate is not greatly different from that of other developed countries, and who would you like to place the blame on anyway?
Indie So your answer is that if something doesn’t concern you it’s none of your concern, you don’t have to think about any issue that doesn’t directly touch you, like poverty. Yet although you don’t give such things much or any thought you still want to promote certain ideas and air some thought on such issues. The thing is you ideas are always going to be shallow and simplistic if you can’t even be bothered to think about them. LOL well if someone only defines ‘their community’ as other of their own kind, people of the same class, race or socio-economic standing as them, then of course they never have to deal or even think about those outside their bubble. So once more I wonder why you are here. If you don’t want to think about others beyond your small tribe why are you coming here putting forward ideas that would effect everyone in your society (and many more adversely that your small clique) . Are you here just to try and cause friction? So even if something was ineffective or didn’t do any good at all or even had an adverse effect on people you’d still prefer to do that than help a support a government that was done great good?
