https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html
Really not much else to say about this one, the push to legitimize is slowly gaining momentum.
----
"Approximately 80 million people died in WW2. That was only 3% of the world's population. This we can conclude that WW2 was mostly peacful?"
Zuby
----
https://www.outkick.com/washington-post-strikes-out-in-hit-piece-attempt/
https://www.outkick.com/washington-post-and-its-liberal-bigot-ben-strauss-protest-too-much/
I guess this is why people think that journalists are unbiased and don't twist things to fit a narrative. Probably doesn't rise to enemy of the people, but it definitely calls the narrative into question. I'm quite sure that those who fetishise the media as always searching for unbiased truth, as well as those who think that "listening to black voices" is some magical incantation, will ignore these links. I'm quite sure they won't be bothered by the reporters choice to ignore the voice of a black man, in favor of misrepresenting said black man.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/07/atlantic-editor-concedes-central-claim-of-trump-hit-piece-could-be-wrong/
Along a similar line, except the Atlantic editor concedes by saying, “I’m sure all of those things are true,”, that the recollections of those who dispute the story are correct. Hence, the story is false. But he justifies printing literal fake news anyway.
----
"Since wealth is the only thing that can cure poverty, you might think that the left would be as obsessed with the creation of wealth as they are with the redistribution of wealth. But you would be wrong."
Thomas Sowell
----
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap
Another example of what happens when studies come into contact with a narrative.
----
"We all oppose bad cops, but BLM is a totally non data-based movement. Last year NINE unarmed Black men were killed by police. Black/white interracial crime annually is 5% oc crime (600K cases/12 million crimes) and 80% of that is Black-on-white. Cities are burning because of lies."
Wilfred Reilley
---
"Trump deserves to lose. Biden doesn't deserve to win. This isn't the end. It's a new beginning. We who follow Jesus are being given the sacred gift of putting Him first in ways, both private and public, we've never known before. A threshold for awakening."
Ray Ortlund
----
https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/03/when-will-a-prominent-black-athlete-stand-up-to-the-mob/
"The most prevalent, and incendiary statistic heard is that black people are being disproportionately being killed by police...The statistic fails on every level."
Larry Elder
It's interesting how people who are usually the first to demand data, statistics, and studies, don't seem to be applying those sorts of matrices to this topic. Could it be that the statistics don't help their cause?
----
"I'm not standing for the National Anthem until America removes Donald Trump from office, either by vote or by force.
Doc#DisasterAssistTeam @dobieblue
This isn't the first time I've seen the left advocate for the violent overthrow of the president. I thought that sort of thing was discouraged by the allegedly pacifist left.
----
"I don't think most people think about laws properly. EVERY LAW is ultimately enfprced by the threat of, or actual violence (disagree? resist arrest)
So before making a law, you should think about if you're 100% comfortable with the government sending their goons to enforce it."
Zuby
----
"Leave it to sinful human beings to take an aspect of out having been created in the image of God-ethnicity-and use it as a weapon to demean and disparage those same image bearers. But such is the effect of sin on the human heart-it makes us the enemies of God and of one another."
Darrell B Harrison
----
"BLM promotes ancestral worship, LGBTQ, dismantlement of the nuclear family, and the emasculation of the black male. This group is demonic and is anti-God and their agenda is to dismantle and destroy our society even if it means physical harm to those who oppose them."
@Ken-1689
----
65 comments:
"Since wealth is the only thing that can cure poverty, you might think that the left would be as obsessed with the creation of wealth as they are with the redistribution of wealth. But you would be wrong."
Thomas Sowell
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
"Then [Jesus] said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
“But God said to him,
‘You fool!
This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’"
and...
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh."
~Jesus
Jesus, of course, does not preach that the solution for poverty is wealth. Indeed, Jesus is quite clear in his warnings about wealth. No, the solution is not for everyone to get rich. The solution is found in sharing and in justice. Not in charity, not in "let's make everyone rich," but in sharing justly.
For what it's worth.
https://kairoscenter.org/jesus-and-poverty-preaching-power-for-poor-people/
Interesting, if bizarre, hunch. It’s almost like you misunderstand the concept of wealth.
Are you seriously arguing that increasing wealth in the black community is a bad thing, and that poverty and government dependence are good things.
I’ll be sure to tell all of the organizations successfully building wealth throughout the developing world that you disagree with their helping people become self sufficient.
But thanks for confirming that you’re for the government forcefully taking wealth from those who’ve earned it and redistributing it to those who haven’t.
I just saw a stat about how white school districts spend more money than black districts with the same number of students.
Despite the potential problems with that statement and a complete lack of context or stats, it’s relevant here.
One reason for this disparity is the racist FDR policy that led to redlining and prevented black families from accessing the best avenue to build wealth (generational wealth), as well as improving school funding in majority black areas.
But wealth is bad.
Craig... "It’s almost like you misunderstand the concept of wealth.
Are you seriously arguing that increasing wealth in the black community is a bad thing, and that poverty and government dependence are good things."
It's almost like you misunderstand the concept of wealth, indeed.
I think what Jesus and the wise people in the Bible clearly and consistently teach is that wealth is a trap. That it tends to corrupt. That it is dangerous and those with wealth tend to be oppressors.
Therefore, no I don't think "wealth" is the answer. Wealth tends to be an awful god.
I think just systems that allow and encourage everyone to have enough are the answer. I think that's what Jesus teaches and what history and reason prove out.
"It's almost like you misunderstand the concept of wealth, indeed."
No, I do understand the concept of wealth, and how important allowing people to accumulate wealth is to multiple facets of life. I understand why so many Christian organizations are committed to micro lending to allow people in third world countries the ability to build wealth. So, I understand the concept of wealth versus income.
The question I have is- Do I listen and pay attention to the black economist (and other black advocacy groups), or do I listen to some random white guy on the internet?
" think what Jesus and the wise people in the Bible clearly and consistently teach is that wealth is a trap. That it tends to corrupt. That it is dangerous and those with wealth tend to be oppressors."
Yes, I understand that you think this, and that you believe that what you "think" about what "Jesus and the wise people in the Bible" should be imposed on others. Do you really think that black families owning homes or businesses to build wealth and equity for their families and their future will "corrupt" them? Or will increasing black wealth through home ownership and business ownership will turn them into "oppressors"?
"Therefore, no I don't think "wealth" is the answer. Wealth tends to be an awful god."
Well, anything but the God revealed in scripture tends to be an awful God. But since Sowell isn't suggesting making wealth "God", it seems that your point is simply foolish.
"I think just systems that allow and encourage everyone to have enough are the answer."
Are you suggesting that justice is embodied by taking from people who produce significant amounts of wealth, and giving it to those who don't?
What system exactly facilitates this "just" leveling of outcomes, and where has this sort of thing succeeded in the past?
Under your "just" system, who gets to decide what level of "enough" is "allowed"? Who "allows" this?
Define precisely what "enough" is?
"I think that's what Jesus teaches and what history and reason prove out."
I know you think that, but that doesn't mean you're right.
If Jesus really taught that ALL wealth, is ALWAYS bad, then why did He not universally condemn those with wealth He encountered?
What historical evidence can you provide of a society that has adopted this "just" system of limiting wealth, and determining what "enough" is, that has succeeded and prospered over a long period of time?
It seems that you still don't actually understand the what wealth is. It seems that you've arbitrarily decided that what Jesus was referring to when He talked about wealth, is the objective definition of wealth in all other contexts.
While it’s amusing to watch you arguing against trying to help POC and immigrants have the opportunity to participate in a system that would allow them to maximize their economic potential. It’s also amusing to watch you try to argue for a system where someone (with your political/economic views perhaps), gets to impose their ideas about what’s enough, what’s just, and whose allowed to have whatever.
It’s all amusing, but if you’re going to continue to avoid answering questions as has been your recent pattern, that’s all it is. Amusing attempts to limit the success of others.
In other threads Dan has painted himself as an expert in various topics. Although he hasn't here yet.
But let's compare.
Thomas Sowell
Raised in Harlem
Served in Korea
Undergrad degree from Harvard
Masters from Columbia
PHD from University of Chicago
On the faculties of Cornell, UCLA and others.
Nobel Prize winner
Author of 30 books
Dan Trabue
Studied journalism at a Junior College
Studied education at U of Louisville
Never studied either economics or theology
Leaving aside the assumption that the black guy has more credibility than the white guy, I'm not thinking that this is a hard choice.
Of course the fact that Dan literally demonstrated that Sowell's quote was accurate is just icing on the cake,
Craig... "Are you suggesting that justice is embodied by taking from people who produce significant amounts of wealth, and giving it to those who don't?"
That certainly could be part of it as long as it's part of the system and not actually forcibly stealing.
for instance, in the Old Testament when the nation of Israel had rules that required farmers to set aside portion of their field for the poor and immigrants. It was a systemic solution to problems of poverty and some not having sufficient resources. Wooden frame it and taking from, it just having Assisted Living taxation or set asides.
Are you really suggesting that a government establishing what is "enough" and taking anything beyond that amount isn't "forcible"? Are you not familiar with what happens when people don't pay their taxes? Seriously name one government mandate that isn't ultimately backed up by coercive force? OK, well as long as you "Wooden frame" the taking of resources from those who produce in excess of what you perceive to be their needs, then it's magically not exactly that. Just because you call it "Assisted Living taxation or set asides", doesn't change the fact that the money is taken from one group of people, and given to another through the coercive (and potentially physical) force of government.
Yes, the gleaning rule. Are you really suggesting that keeping the poor at a subsistence level of depending on others is a healthy economic model?
Essentially, your answer is "Yes, I believe that justice involves the government taking from some people to give to other people, based on an arbitrary standard of what's "enough"."
1. That's a bizarre notion of "justice".
2. Weeks ago, I suggested that you check out a podcast. I'd be shocked if you had, but I'll suggest again that you check it out. The episode I recommended contains some great exegesis of what justice looks like from a Biblical perspective. Maybe listening to the voices of some black folk would be helpful to you.
Wow, you answered one whole question. Good job.
Craig... "What historical evidence can you provide of a society that has adopted this "just" system of limiting wealth, and determining what "enough" is, that has succeeded and prospered over a long period of time?"
1. I never said anything about a society limiting wealth.
2. No system has worked perfectly. Not the ancient Israel policy requiring sections of fields to be set aside, not socialist Cuba, not capitalist U.S. No system works perfectly.
3. The systems that seem to have work out best - at least to many people - are systems with reasonable regulations on wealth and reasonable safety nets for poverty. For instance, people around the world have been pretty content with their so-called socialized medicine. That's just one example of part of a social safety net, but it has worked, and it's worked via the nation having reasonable taxation to pay for reasonable Health Care.
I've had families and friends live in other nations and to a person they've been well satisfied with the medical systems of these other nations.
Just by way of one example in one area.
"I don't think most people think about laws properly. EVERY LAW is ultimately enforced by the threat of, or actual violence (disagree? resist arrest)
So before making a law, you should think about if you're 100% comfortable with the government sending their goons to enforce it."
Another black voice speaking to exactly my point. Even though you sugar coat what you are advocating for with semantic twists. The reality is that if it comes from the government, this is the (potential) endgame.
FYI, since your scheme of enforced "justice" involves taking from those who produce in excess of their needs, and giving to those who don't produce. What is to stop the producers from simply not producing any excess? What is to stop those in the middle from simply quitting producing enough for their needs (as determined by others), and deciding that they'd rather lets others produce for them? Are you really suggesting that not only will the government decide what's enough for everyone, but that the government will force those who produce more than "enough" to continue to produce at the same level regardless of their wishes?
Craig... "Are you not familiar with what happens when people don't pay their taxes?"
Are you insane? Are you not familiar with how governments operate?
Allow me to explain.
In a free Commonwealth, reasonable people recognize that we need to pull our money to pay for some basic common needs. Roads, police, fire departments, schools, Etc. The way we do this is by taxation. It is part of the social compact. In a Free Nation, if you disagree with the system of taxation, you are free to leave, but you are not free to not pay your share. That would be stealing, taking advantage of others paying so that you don't have to.
Taxation to pay for things is normal and not stealing and not forcibly taking. It's part of the social compact. Were you really not aware of this?
1. Really? "I think just systems that allow and encourage everyone to have enough are the answer." If your system that is designed to only "allow" everyone to have "enough" then explain how limiting everyone to "enough" (still undefined and not detailed), NOT entail taking wealth from those who have more than "enough"?
2. This goes without saying. That's why I didn't ask about a society that accomplished perfection, I asked for you for examples of societies that flourished using this model. By responding to a question I didn't ask, and by attempting to make this about "perfect: instead of successful, you've simply tried to dodge the question.
3. Yet "socialized medicine" has absolutely nothing to do with a society set up to "allow" people to only have "enough".
Except, it's not really an example of a society based on society "allow"ing people to only have "enough".
A couple of suggestions to maybe save time.
1. Answer the questions as asked.
2. Maybe it would make sense for you to provide some details about how this system that is set up to only "that allow and encourage everyone to have enough" would be designed. Maybe go into details about the entirety of the "system" instead of cherry picking some (bad) examples of sub systems.
Finally, I'd suggest looking at the data regarding the actual outcomes of many of the "socialized medical" systems actually work at providing medical service in a timely manner, and at the true costs of the systems. I'm guessing that the folks who die waiting for treatment, or who leave their country so they don't, aren't particularly happy with "socialized medicine". Further most "socialized medicine" systems allow for people to bypass the system if they can afford to go get served in the parallel system.
Even with all of that, it's still not an example of a system that is set up to "allow' people to have only "enough".
"Are you insane? Are you not familiar with how governments operate?"
Quite the contrary. I'm quite familiar with the full extent of the coercive/punitive force arrayed against a citizen who fails to pay federal taxes.
"In a Free Nation, if you disagree with the system of taxation, you are free to leave, but you are not free to not pay your share. That would be stealing, taking advantage of others paying so that you don't have to."
Again, it's an artful dodge. I am familiar with the notion that taxes are simply a voluntary contribution for the good of the nation. Yet, as you point out, they really aren't. Failing to pay taxes will result in an increasingly onerous (and disproportionate) series of penalties up to forfeiture of everything you own and/or incarceration. Obviously, leaving the country doesn't protect anyone from these penalties. The reality is that (despite your naive and pollyannaish fantasy) that the collection of federal and state taxes is very much compelled by the threat of coercion and force.
"Taxation to pay for things is normal and not stealing and not forcibly taking. It's part of the social compact. Were you really not aware of this?"
Are you really not aware that the payment of taxes is enforced by the use of coercive and forceful measures?
Again, I'm aware of this because I've been on the receiving end of it. Do some research and look up the penalties for not paying taxes. Explain how the penalties are proportionate and just?
Again, your answers as a form of diversion are impressive.
"Were you really not aware of this?""
Yes, I am. I'm aware that it is a part of the "social compact" that is backed up by multiple means of enforcing compliance that are use both coercion and force. Further, it's the one part of the federal government where the presumption of innocence doesn't apply and where you can be held liable for errors on the part of the IRS.
Just ant proportionate, my ass.
I pay my taxes voluntarily, I'm not coerced. You see, I want to pay my fair share.
You don't?
What's interesting with your attack on wealth, is that so very many people on both sides of the aisle recognize the fact that one of the significant factors in what is described as "inequality" is the fact that FDR's racist housing policy eliminated the possibility of a significant percentage of the black population at the time from accessing one of the most important components of building wealth. It's further amazing that you are arguing against this notion.
You are literally arguing for the "give a man a fish" side of the example, rather than the "teach a man to fish" side.
Worldwide, poverty has dropped significantly in recent decades, but strangely enough the driver hasn't been societies who limit people to "enough" and let people "glean" from the margins.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/world-bank-global-poverty-rate-drops-to-record-low.html
Hell, being in poverty in the US, something much of the world aspires to. While nothing is perfect, the standard of living for those in poverty is that US is unimaginable to most of the world. Imagine what it would be had FDR not implemented his racist housing policy?
https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-richer-than-most-nations-of-europe/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/27/by-global-standards-there-are-no-american-poor-all-in-the-us-are-middle-class-or-better/#6f73ba95cb51
I'm still waiting for an example of a society with an entire economy based on your construct, where it's been successful.
Even you tax example undercuts your premise. The entire social safety net in the US is predicated on people who earn far in excess of what is "enough" and pay into the coffers of the US enough money that approximately 50% pays zero federal income taxes. How is it that 50% of the US population doesn't have to pay any income taxes as part of the "social contract"?
I really appreciate the amusement you're providing though.
"I pay my taxes voluntarily, I'm not coerced. You see, I want to pay my fair share."
Really, please define your "fair share"? So, when you fill out your taxes every year, do you pay the amount that your are required to pay? The full and entire amount of your tax liability? I'm sure that you have more than "enough" after you pay your taxes, do you ever throw in any extra/
"You don't?"
I pay my taxes because I'm required to, I pay my taxes because I'm well acquainted with the coercive force that the IRS will bring to bear. I acknowledge that taxes are a necessary component of living in the US, and I comply.
Are you really unfamiliar with the coercive and forceful measures taken if your don't pay your taxes or if you have an error?
Do you think it's fair, just, and proportionate for the IRS to engage in threats of coercion and force due to a typographical error? An error of one digit being incorrect?
Is it just, fair, and proportionate that folks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others are able to escape the same penalties others do for failure to pay taxes?
FYI, I understand exactly what you've done with this idiocy of pretending like taxes aren't paid under the threat of coercion or force. It's a way for you to avoid answering questions by asking off topic and diversionary questions because you know I won't ignore them. It's an interesting tactic, but it's old and tired by now.
Craig... "Are you really unfamiliar with the coercive and forceful measures taken if your don't pay your taxes or if you have an error?"
Unfamiliar with rules that say you go to jail if you steal from someone else by breaking into their home and taking something. And I'm familiar with rules to say you go to jail he felt it for your taxes and Thuss steal from the whole nation. Are you suggesting that stealing from the whole nation is not every bit as bad as stealing from an individual?
This is the problem with conservatives. Today's conservatives. They act like the civic duty of paying taxes is somehow an oppressive act when in reality it's stealing. Plain and simple.
Craig... "understand exactly what you've done with this idiocy of pretending like taxes aren't paid under the threat of coercion or force..."
I'm wondering, do you also frame feeling like that? That is, do you say things like You're pretending like stealing isn't penalized under threat of coercion or force?
That strikes me as odd language to use to talk about those who would break the law or cheat others.
I guess you recall the story of the two people in the early church who didn't share their resources and yet pretended like they did? They were penalized under the threat of death.
Ok, you’ve clearly determined to drive this as far away from answering your questions and explaining your mythical fantasy system as possible, by making shit up about other people. You’re commitment to obfuscation is impressive.
Of course, you idiot, one of the things that deters people from stealing is the threat of having coercion or force used against them. Are you truly stupid as regards the coercive force available to compel payment of taxes, or do you prefer to live in a fantasy world.
RE: The early Church
1. Capital punishment for keeping the proceeds of a property sale that you weren’t compelled to give away sounds excessive, unjust, and disproportionate to me.
2. The giving in Acts was VOLUNTARY. They chose to give and they chose how much.
3. Are you really suggesting that you’re ok with capital punster for telling one little lie?
4. There was no threat of death. No one said “Give us your money or we’ll kill you.”, it was their choice to give and how much. It was the lying that was the problem.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you are a couple of W2 wage earners who claim 1 exemption, have your taxes deducted out of your paycheck, file every year, and think you’ve gotten a gift if you get $500.00 back as a “refund”. That most likely explains your cavalier attitude towards taxes.
Although, I suspect you really don’t pay all the taxes you actually owe, you likely take the deductions and credits available to avoid paying part of what you really owe.
It’s been an amusing diversion. but your token “answers” still leave plenty of questions for you to catch up on.
Unlike you, I’ll give you grace and allow your diversions and dodging of questions without deletion. Just don’t expect much, or bitch, when your comments don’t get a response.
Good lord you’re proving Sowell’s comment correct,
The point of citing the story of Ananias and Sapphira was that they were trying to benefit without paying. Being part of that community qualified them for some benefits. They suggested that they were promoting and supporting the community implying they have been given everything they owned, but that was a lie.
The point being, they were benefiting from A system that they weren't paying into. Just like conservatives, you sound like you are aggrieved to pay your fair share of taxes. You want to enjoy the benefits of being part of a free Society with roads and teachers and fire departments, but you complain about paying for it. You sound like you would be glad to take advantage of the benefits without paying into it.
Further, those like me and probably you who have benefited more from the system, should have incentive and desire to pay more into the system so that those who are struggling can manage and get past their struggles. We want to pay taxes and support these sort of programs because they benefit the society as a whole.
The business owner who gets rich from the work of his employees does so because those employees got to their business on public roads paid for by taxes and they were educated at Public School paid for by taxes. So businesses and those who are especially successful should be even more motivated to pay more because they're benefiting more from the system.
But no, to you and your type, taxes are an oppression, a thievery that can only happen by force. It appears to be a very selfish and self-centered and messed up world view. An essentially greedy worldview.
Or that's how it comes across. Which also plays into you the notion of wealth being inherently a trap.
That would be a great point, had they actually been trying to avoid donating to the community, except they DID donate to the community, they just lied about how much they sold their property for. In essence they tried to lie to God.
Further, you have absolutely no way to demonstrate that they were giving to get some benefit from the Church.
In any case, to try to compare a voluntary gift to an organization they voluntarily chose to give to, to a mandatory tax imposed by the government is one of the shittiest examples you’ve ever tried to twist into support for one of your hunches.
Why would I bother to spend any time on more of your imaginary bullshit.
Your obsession with diverting the conversation away from the topic, and your refusal to answer questions/provide details is quite telling.
It's only mandatory taxes if you choose to stay here. You are free to leave at any point. You can take your money and get the hell out of here because we don't need your cheap-ass greed.
That is the problem with wealth, what you are talking about is the problem with wealth. The debilitating crippling deceptive problem of wealth. You've summed it up nicely.
See you later have fun in Antarctica or wherever it is you're going to go and live without taxes and without all the benefits that the rest of us are glad to pay for. Part of being an adult is being willing to pay your way. Grow
You’re just projecting some bullshit made up fantasy on others because you can’t answer questions or explain your idiotic goal of a system that “allows” people only “enough”.
The fact that you’re so obsessed with not allowing this poor to accumulate wealth based on their abilities and effort, but instead only “allowing” them what you (or others like you) decide is “enough”.
It’s amusing to watch you get so unhinged, and put so much effort into avoidance.
Craig, you continue to not understand what I've said.
Read closely, think about it, let it sink in and then ask questions if you don't understand still.
I. Did. Not. Say. The. Gov't. Should. Not. Allow. The. Poor. To. Only. Accumulate. A. Certain. Amount.
Read it again. Say it out loud and think about the meaning of those words. If it crosses your mind, "I wonder if this means Dan thinks the gov't should not allow the poor to accumulate beyond a certain amount...?" STOP. Realize that I DID NOT SAY THAT. Re-read my explanation and keep going until that thought no longer enters your mind.
It's always amusing to hear Dan pretend he's concerned about the needy while refusing to earn more despite his being capable of doing so. He's far more concerned with how much the wealthy gives and presuming to dictate that it's never enough...that the amount of tax revenues they generate is not "fair".
True concern for the poor is not keeping them poor and giving them handouts. But this is what Dan demands of others while he does little to increase his own wealth from which he can donate all he likes. He's always been a fraud who condescends to better people about whom he has no idea the extent of their charity.
Dan,
I'll quote your own words.
"I think what Jesus and the wise people in the Bible clearly and consistently teach is that wealth is a trap. That it tends to corrupt. That it is dangerous and those with wealth tend to be oppressors."
If "wealth is a trap" that "tends to corrupt", is "dangerous", then it seems reasonable to conclude that you wouldn't want black folk and other poor folk to have wealth, correct?
"Therefore, no I don't think "wealth" is the answer. Wealth tends to be an awful god."
Since you don't think that wealth is the "answer" to poverty, again it seems reasonable to conclude that you would discourage black folk and other poor folk for even attempting to accumulate any wealth, correct?
"I think just systems that allow and encourage everyone to have enough are the answer."
Since you think that a "just system" that only "allows" everyone (presumably everyone includes black folk and other poor folk), then your worlds naturally lead normal people to the reasonable conclusion that you want a "system" that will "allow" black folk and other poor folk to have only "enough" and that you would discourage them from attempting to accumulate wealth (of any kind or level) because wealth is inherently "dangerous", correct?
Of course, I've been asking questions since you started posting this idiocy and you haven't bothered to answer those as you've been too busy diverting, obfuscating, and making shit up. Maybe if you'd have answered the questions I've already asked and given the explanations you've been asked for, we wouldn't be here.
I'm sure it's hard for you to accept the possibility that any fault in this could possibly be attributed to you, and that your failure to answer questions or explain your bizarre position could be in any way responsible for what you perceive as a failure to understand.
Art,
As I pointed out yesterday, Dan seems wedded to the "Give a man a fish" side of the equation and to developing a "system" that will limit "everyone" so that it will only "allow" them "enough".
Thank God that there are people with wisdom and concern for the poor that understand that if you only "allow' people "enough" (using a definition of enough imposed by others) that you do people no favors.
I still think that Dan is failing to understand the real definition of wealth. I suspect he's a big fan of a $25.00/hr minimum wage as well.
Dan,
Although you haven't answered the previous questions yet, which could have helped, you can tackle these when you're done with the unanswered.
1. When your speak of a "system", what exactly is the form that "system" takes?
2. When you speak of what that system will "allow" in terms of wealth, what does "allow" mean and how with that be implemented?
3. When you say that this "system" will "only "allow" people to have "enough", what exactly does "enough" mean?
4. Who in this system determines what exactly "enough" is?
5. What happens if people accumulate more than "enough"?
6. If Jesus and those in the Bible taught about wealth what you claim they did, are you suggesting that any wealth in any circumstances is "dangerous"?
7. Why did Jesus interact with those both wealthier and more powerful than He, without warning them about the "dangerous" nature of wealth?
8, Is it possible that Jesus was making a distinction between those who make accumulating wealth their "god', and those with wealth who worshiped God as their God and used their wealth to further His purposes?
9. Do you understand, if you listen to black voices (and others), that access to increased level of wealth is an economic benefit to both individuals/families but to society as well?
10. When you use the term "justice" in this context, please explain how you are defining the term and what "justice" in an economic sense means?
Craig... "If "wealth is a trap" that "tends to corrupt", is "dangerous", then it seems reasonable to conclude that you wouldn't want black folk and other poor folk to have wealth, correct?"
No, not correct. You can't take words in isolation and make up wild theories as if those words were everything. YES, Jesus taught and I agree that wealth is a trap. Wise people throughout the world throughout the ages have said that.
AND, at the same time, tyrannical central control is a trap and a danger, as well. Deciding for others what their jobs can be, how much they get paid, what their health care decisions to be... these are all dangerous and potentially tyrannical things to beware of.
Life is in the balance. We don't note one concern (cars pollute and cause harm) and make and enforce a decision based on that ONE consideration - even it's legitimate - without weighing other concerns (cars also help as in cases of ambulances or fire engines or getting people somewhere far away quickly). For instance.
So, because I DO NOT SUPPORT tyranny, I would not advocate a king, for instance, dictating how much someone can or can not make. And I CERTAINLY would not direct that towards one race because racism.
SO, reasonable people should be able to suss out the distinction between raising the concern (as Jesus and countless others have) with unfettered wealth accumulation AND dictating control over other people's lives.
Of course.
So, the answer to your question is an obvious No.
SO, returning to your nonsensical conclusion... ""If "wealth is a trap" that "tends to corrupt", is "dangerous", then it seems reasonable to conclude that you wouldn't want black folk and other poor folk to have wealth, correct?"
NO, this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that wealth is a trap and something to be wary of for all people and what we need is not simply WEALTH as an answer. We need just systems in place that provide for everyone to have enough.
What does that look like? Well, obviously, it is complicated and wide ranging. A whole book can be written about it. But in short, it means
A. That all people should have equal opportunities for meaningful employment and wages
B. That we recognize that the playing field is not even and take that reality into consideration
C. For instance, a person with a significant disability will have a more difficult time finding a job and competing in the traditional "competitive hiring" market simply will not work for them. We need a better system of hiring and employment that allows these folks to have the opportunity to do what they CAN do, not be cast out from the possibility of employment for what they can't do.
D. It means that we recognize that women and many minorities have a whole history of discrimination against them and that this reality has given centuries of advantage to white men, so we need systems that take that into consideration.
For starters. Out of time.
I’ll simply point bout that you could have phrased your initial comments more accurately as well as actually explaining in more detail much earlier instead of engaging in diversion.
Point out, not “bout”...
No. I didn't need to be more clear. With rational adults who are liberty-loving, you can assume that fascism is not part of what they're advocating. You don't have to make idiotic guesses like that. Start with the assumption that Dan is probably not a fascist.
For instance, I begin with the assumption that all conservatives can agree that obviously slavery is a sin. That it is a great and terrible evil in every kind of circumstance. It's only when they start talking as if maybe they think that sometimes slavery isn't a sin that I would begin to ask them do you not think that slavery is a sin?
Who said anything about fascism?
Look, I asked you much earlier to expound and give more detail, that’s not my fault that you chose to divert.
I’m not the one who wants "just systems that allow and encourage everyone to have enough are the answer.". You’re literally the one who proposed a system based on allowing people to only have enough.
I’m sorry you’ve chosen to not define your terms and provide an explanation. But please, pretend that I haven’t already answered your question, and continue the diversions. V
How about if you answer the questions you’ve been asked, define your terms, and explain your “system” to “allow” people “enough”, then we’ll see how much sense you make.
Craig... "You’re literally the one who proposed a system based on allowing people to only have enough."
I literally did not say that. I literally did not say "only enough." That's your interpretation, not my words. Do you understand your mistake?
I'm glad, within some reason, to answer your questions. The problem is, you continually misunderstand what I said in the first place and so I have to go back and correct your misunderstanding. You then respond with something that is yet another misunderstanding and I need to correct that. Communicating with you is troublesome. You have such difficulty understanding words and wanting to read into what people have said things they have not said.
If me applying standard English language grammar,syntax, and definitions to your sentences doesn’t get you what you want, then expand and define
If you were glad to answer questions, you’d already have done so. If you cared about being understood, you’d have answered the questions and defined your terms already. If answering questions was really on your agenda, you wouldn’t be making preemptive excuses for not answering.
That's funny. Dan says he's forced to "go back and correct your misunderstanding." But he doesn't. He simply whines more about being misunderstood when a simple rephrasing may provide the clarity needed in order to move on. Why must we assume we've misunderstood anything which seems to lead to the conclusions one's words so clearly imply. If we're coming to conclusions your words compel, the fault is yours, Dan, and it's therefore up to you to provide clarity...AFTER apologizing for being so convoluted.
As to your list from 9/10 @ 9:49AM...
A. All already have equal opportunities for meaningful employment and wages.
B. Irregularities in the playing field are irrelevant to those willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve, as has been demonstrated as true by literally hundreds, if not thousands, who began with nothing and succeeded nonetheless. "Unlevel" playing fields is an excuse as well as a plot to further redistributive socialist schemes.
C. How will you force employers to provide for any/every disability, and who are you to demand such a thing? What jobs have you provided for such people?
D. Women and minorities have a history of overcoming challenges just as have anyone else. Ever hear of a chick named "Oprah Winfrey"?
I repeat:
Craig... "You’re literally the one who proposed a system based on allowing people to only have enough."
I literally did not say that. I literally did not say "only enough." That's your interpretation, not my words.
It has NOTHING to do with standard English language grammar, syntax and definitions. There is a difference between lightning and lightning bug. There is a difference between "proposing a system based on allowing people to only have enough" and what I said.
Words have meanings. Sentences have meanings. I did NOT say what you concluded.
Last time:
Do you understand your mistake?
Art,
Excellent point. Dan asserts that I don’t understand him, but fails to explain specifically what I don’t understand. He hasn’t explained the “system” they will “allow” people to have “enough”. He complains that I pointed out that it’s really “only enough”, yet the very definition of “enough” in the context of being “allowed” “enough”, precluded having more than “enough”. So in the context of his construct, only “enough”, is almost demanded by the context of the sentence he wrote. But, instead of defining his terms, explaining his “system”, he simply bitches that I don’t understand. It’s a repetitive, tired, trope that accomplishes nothing but obfuscation.
Dan,
Then by all means, explain how "enough" means "more than enough". If there is a difference between "enough" and "only enough", then explain what that difference is. You are correct that words and sentences have meanings. I've been asking you to clarify those meanings and define those words for days. The fact that you won't do so, while blaming me for assigning the standard definitions and meanings to the words, looks like more obfuscation. I've literally been asking for clarification since 10:29 on Sept 9. Yet it hasn't been forthcoming, only obfuscation, diversion, and lack of answers.
I do realize your mistake, do you?
So is it the case that you truly do not understand your mistake or that you're just not intellectually honest enough to admit to it? If you don't understand, then just say so. Say I don't understand. Please explain it to me.
I'm going to assume that you're not understanding words correctly and so I'll explain it to you.
Enough does not imply only enough. Enough can be enough and more, for instance.
When were talking about the poor who might be struggling, saying "We would like to see that everyone, including the poor, has enough," is expressing a desire to see that at the least minimal needs are met. It in no way implies that we are suggesting the poor would have bread and water and that would be sufficient to keep them alive.
So, again, Enough does not imply nor demand Only enough. And only enough is not what I said, literally not what I said, and not what I was suggesting.
Now do you understand your mistake?
This is why talking with you is so difficult. If I'm forced to go through and explain each word in every sentence, conversation becomes a near-impossible task. In normal adult conversation, words like Enough should be understood without having to explain it.
Art,
As to your list.
A. I'd say that it's "almost all", rather than "all". There are too many people trapped in highly funded, but failing, school districts that are behind grade level in basic subjects. That clearly is a disadvantage. In theory, you are correct, but the reality is that we're not there yet. The other side of that is that there are many more options for financially rewarding careers that do not require a college degree, and as such are much more accessible to more people.
B. I agree that it's possible to overcome these "imbalances" in the playing field, while also understanding that we still need to work to remove the "imbalances" entirely. The problem is that much of the work in this area is not designed to get to a level playing field, but to tilt the field so that it advantages other groups.
C. I think it's possible to get creative in helping the disabled find work that they can do, or that can be easily adapted to their situation, without forcing companies to hire those who's disability clearly prevents them from doing the job. (Extreme example) It's insane to expect a company the builds wind turbines to be forced to put someone who's physically disabled on the crew that assembles the turbines, yet I suspect that there are jobs that could be filled by a person with a disability.
D. Again, you are correct that people like Oprah have over come the challenge, and that others can as well. I'd argue that those who overcome those challenges are probably stronger and better because of their hard work. But, that doesn't mean we don't try to eliminate those challenges. What this ignores is that minorities and women ARE being given preferences, they are increasingly prevalent in college and universities, and they are increasingly prevalent in STEM programs. The reality is that the tide is turning, and will likely continue to turn. However, I'm not sure that discriminating against qualified white men is the answer. Nor is lowering the requirements for minorities and women. Finally, if we look at the data, we find that certain "minorities" are significantly out performing whites in these areas without any special preference. It would be worthwhile to look at that and try to find the reasons for it.
"So is it the case that you truly do not understand your mistake or that you're just not intellectually honest enough to admit to it? If you don't understand, then just say so. Say I don't understand. Please explain it to me."
I've been asking for you to explain yourself and define your terms for days. If you haven't done it by now, why is asking one more time going to make any difference? It's clear that you meant something, that your written comment didn't adequately communicate. Unfortunately, all I have to go on is what you wrote, not what you intended to write.
"I'm going to assume that you're not understanding words correctly and so I'll explain it to you."
Finally, it only took 3 days.
"Enough does not imply only enough. Enough can be enough and more, for instance."
So, you were using the word "enough" in a nonstandard way. You're literally arguing that "enough can mean enough plus something else". If you meant "more then enough" why not simply be precise.
"When were talking about the poor who might be struggling, saying "We would like to see that everyone, including the poor, has enough," is expressing a desire to see that at the least minimal needs are met. It in no way implies that we are suggesting the poor would have bread and water and that would be sufficient to keep them alive."
Again, why not be accurate and precise.
"So, again, Enough does not imply nor demand Only enough. And only enough is not what I said, literally not what I said, and not what I was suggesting."
So, I'm supposed to magically know that "enough" means "more than enough".
"Now do you understand your mistake?"
Yes, it is not being able to read your mind and not making multiple assumptions about what you could possibly mean despite what you actually say.
"This is why talking with you is so difficult. If I'm forced to go through and explain each word in every sentence, conversation becomes a near-impossible task. In normal adult conversation, words like Enough should be understood without having to explain it."
Oh my lord, the burdens of having to clearly communicate what you actually mean, explain yourself and occasionally define your terms. Not to mention ignoring requests that you clarify and define things for literally days, while you bitch instead. Because it's so conducive to conversation to ask for clarification for days, then get bitched at because you chose to ignore my requests.
For clarity, the definition of enough
Occurring in such quantity, quality, or scope as to fully meet demands, needs, or expectations enough food for everyone
In or to a degree or quantity that satisfies or that is sufficient or necessary for
: a sufficient number, quantity, or amount
As we see, the actual definition of enough, does not (in standard English language usage support your claim that it actually "means enough and more".
Even when confronted with your misunderstanding and having it explained to you multiple times, you can't admit you were stupidly, factually mistaken and misrepresented my position.
No surprise there.
Let me know if you can ever grow up a bit more in your conversations to be able to admit not understanding when you don't know.
Admitting your lack of understanding is the starting point of understanding.
Now, what you've done here is impressive. You've thrown up a smoke screen by insisting that I should have assumed that you were using "enough" in a non standard way and beyond the definition of the word and diverted attention away from the really problematic word in your sentence.
Even if we accept your nonstandard definition of "enough", the problem remains that you are advocating a "system" that is set up to "allow" people "enough".
My problem isn't quibbling about how much is "enough", it's with a "system" designed to "allow" people to have what the "system" decides is "enough".
You could tell that this was my concern because I wrote the following days ago.
"Are you suggesting that justice is embodied by taking from people who produce significant amounts of wealth, and giving it to those who don't?
What system exactly facilitates this "just" leveling of outcomes, and where has this sort of thing succeeded in the past?
Under your "just" system, who gets to decide what level of "enough" is "allowed"? Who "allows" this?
Define precisely what "enough" is?"
just think how much of this confusion could have been avoided had you not chosen to avoid those questions, but answered them instead. Isn't it remotely possible that your answers to those questions could have cleared up this alleged "confusion"?
The fact that you chose to NOT take the simple path of answering questions designed to clarify your point, but chose TO obfuscate and divert while blaming me for your choices leads me to some definite conclusions about your intent and motives.
The fact that you are demonstrating the Truth of Sowells quote is just icing on the cake.
It's further an interesting thought that you would oppose people having property that has monetary or exchangeable value and material objects that have economic utility.
"Even when confronted with your misunderstanding and having it explained to you multiple times, you can't admit you were stupidly, factually mistaken and misrepresented my position."
Even when confronted with the demonstrable fact that you ignored my asking for clarification for days, the fact that you were using words in nonstandard ways, and still continue to blame me for your failures and misrepresent my positions, the fact that you have the hubris to maintain this charade is amusing and a bit pathetic.
No surprise there.
"Let me know if you can ever grow up a bit more in your conversations to be able to admit not understanding when you don't know."
Ahhhhhh, the condescending excuse to run away from the unanswered questions, the undefined terms, and the nonstandard usages of words in a way that allows you to act angry and save face. It's an oldie but a goodie.
"Admitting your lack of understanding is the starting point of understanding."
Ignoring that I've been asking for clarification and definitions for days, while feigning a willingness to answer, explain, and define, is the starting point for slinking away once again with another bunch of questions unanswered.
I'm sorry that you are so unconcerned with making sure that you've accurately communicated precisely what you intended to say clearly and correctly, that you're simply left blaming others for your laziness.
And while I have no confidence that you all will understand me correctly, or even recognize that you don't understand me correctly, I will give one example of what I'm speaking about. I'll use the example of people with disabilities, because it's my field and it's an area I'm very familiar with.
People with intellectual disabilities have an unemployment rate of between 60-90%. In spite of their disabilities, these adults have all manner of abilities and competencies and desire to work. They bring a wealth of skills and positive attributes to their employers.
Nonetheless, the vast majority are unemployed.
Now, given a laissez faire, hands off capitalist approach, there simply is little incentive to find ways to get such individuals hired. With no SYSTEMS and POLICIES in place, these individuals will simply stay at home, or in homes and die early deaths. According to the data.
This is easily evident by looking at the history of those with disabilities. One hundred years ago, they were locked up in institutions, jailed in their beds in the most obscenely disgusting and inhumane conditions. THAT was what hands off laissez faire free market "freedom" led to and leads to. Given the notion of "Wealth-as-solution," there is great incentive to ignore those more difficult to hire and let it be.
The end result WILL BE institutions and other injustices.
Now, SOME PLACES and times, within a laissez faire approach, will respond with charity-based solutions. But the problems with these is that they are inconsistent, insufficient and lacking a more systemized solution to create effective, across-the-board justice for the marginalized.
In those circumstances, indeed, the "charity cases" often had "enough," but enough was oppressive and deplorable. When someone says, "I think just systems that allow and encourage everyone to have enough are the answer..." we are NOT talking about that.
We're talking about systemic, policy-based changes to systems of hiring that take into account the unequal playing field.
Saying, "Well, the employer had an open announcement to the public for this position, they just need to come in and apply and the best person will get the job..." That is the competitive hiring model and it is insufficient to the needs of the marginalized.
At the same time, OF COURSE, no one is arguing, "Hey, you MUST hire that man in a wheelchair to climb trees and cut limbs, as a matter of justice..." OR, "We really should elect to president a man whose intellectual disability and emotional instability do not allow him to do the job..." Trump being elected to a position he was in no way qualified for is NOT the dream of disability advocates. It was his WEALTH that let him get where he was IN SPITE of being unqualified/unfit.
But that's an aside, a relative example, but an aside.
cont'd...
We are not talking about forced hirings. We are not talking about hiring people for roles they are not suited for.
What we're talking about is recognizing
1. That given a hands off free market solution, many of these people will remain unemployed
2. That everyone has tasks, talents, skills and qualities that they can bring to an employer
3. That we need to be creative and deliberate about finding meaningful work for all who wish to work and that requires deliberate efforts and a willingness to NOT just laissez faire.
4. I work for an agency that uses a model called customized employment that looks specifically at the skills of the job candidate (and anyone can benefit from this, but especially those marginalized) and the needs of an employer and being open to customizing a job that is a win-win-win-win (etc) solution.
Win, when the employer has work that is getting done well by the typically unhired job candidate.
Win, when the typically unhired have the opportunity to get hired and contribute.
Win, when the broader population benefit from a formerly ignored population.
Win, when the newly employed person with a disability requires fewer gov't or charity resources because they're making their own money.
But this only happens if we opt OUT of the laissez faire model and INTO a deliberate, well-considered, policy of making room for those typically ignored.
For one example.
We could do the same thing for race and other marginalized groups and that some individuals CAN break through a laissez faire system to succeed, does not mean that most or many WILL. It has to be a deliberate effort. Free market, alone... wealth, alone, will only exacerbate the problem.
So, your response to me demonstrating that your ignoring of the questions and definitions I'd asked for days ago, is to launch into a condescending and insulting rant on another topic entirely.
Of course, your condescending and insulting rant ignores the fact that in my response to Art, I essentially agreed with you. But, of course in your rush to condescend, you were too lazy to actually read what I said because that would only slow down your hubristic attempt to show expertise in something after your abject failure to provide any clarifications or definitions over a period of days.
Now, to be fair. I can think of a couple of things that you said people weren't talking about, that people are now talking about. So, while I agree that "no one" is talking NOW about forced hiring, I suspect that given the right circumstances we will be at some point.
Of course, what's to motivation to work, if you'd like a "system" that would "allow" everyone to have "enough"? Why would I work, if your "system" is going to allow me to have "enough"? If your system that is set up to "allow" people "enough" what is the motivation for anyone to start or continue to operate a business? You do know that without business owners who generate more than "enough", it'd be impossible to hire any of these folks.
My position is that work, supporting oneself. is ennobling and empowering. Work has value beyond simply providing a paycheck. I'd argue that the non financial benefits of hiring the disabled to do meaningful, productive work is less important than the sense of worth they get from being employed.
I've worked for, seen, and applaud companies that do this and would encourage others to do so as well.
But clearly I'm too stupid to understand any of this and am in need of your condescending, insulting, diatribe to set me straight.
Combining obfuscation, straw men, and a smoke screen with condescension and being insulting is quite the impressive feat. Maybe put some of that energy into answering the questions you've been avoiding for days, defining your terms, and detailing your vagueness.
Art,
With the caveat that I'm probably just not quite smart enough to understand any of these things, let's look at this.
"Free market, alone... wealth, alone, will only exacerbate the problem."
Because encouraging and supporting (through things like micro finance) entrepreneurship and business ownership among minorities will only exacerbate the problem.
Because those business owners and entrepreneurs making a profit, gaining wealth, hiring employees, and expanding their business will only exacerbate things.
Because continuing to dismantle that lingering effects of FDR's racist home lending policies and encouraging responsible home ownership among minorities will only exacerbate things.
Because a family that buys a home, makes the payments, builds equity, then uses that equity to further the economic interests of their family/children will only exacerbate things.
An example that Dan might not get because he sees accumulating wealth as "dangerous".
Let's take a minority family that works hard, saves their money, and is responsible with their finances, and is able to buy a house to live in. Then let's look at all the things that this one purchase can leverage through the creative use of equity.
1. Use the equity/collateral as the seed money to start a small business.
2. The small business employs family members and other members of the community.
3. If things go well (BLM doesn't burn or loot their business) they go from renting their space to owning it.
4. Because they own their building (depending on size and layout) they can rent to others or use the equity in the building to fund further expansion.
5. Because they have equity, they might be able to finance the education of their children without excessive student loans.
6. The deductability of various things lowers their tax burden and allows them more available cash for expenses, savings, or investment.
7. They use the equity as a means to purchase other properties which they can rent or flip to make a profit.
8. This increasing value of this property (these properties) increase the value of surrounding properties, the tax based of both the city and the school district.
But, as we see, Dan considers this accumulation of wealth "dangerous" and is concerned that these people might become "corrupt" or "oppressors". Clearly encouraging this sort of activity would only exacerbate things and make life worse for everyone.
Sometimes it's hard to look beyond ones experiences, biases, and political ideology, to consider that there just might be some value in other ways of doing things. Not in always looking for someone to impose a "system" that will simply "allow" people to have "enough".
It seems likely that the end result of an imposed "system" designed to "allow" people "enough" might end up looking a bit like this.
There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas
The trouble with the maples
And they're quite convinced they're right
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade?
There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream, "oppression"
And the oaks just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
"The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light"
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet
Axe
And saw
You know, forcibly lowering some, instead of raising up others.
I've done what you likely wouldn't do. I've chosen to extend you the grace of believing that despite the multitude of flaws, that you are genuinely curious and that it wasn't simply another attempt to divert attention away from your inability to answer questions and your attempts to divert from your lack of answers.
Now that I'm back from my vacation, I can address some of what has transpired during that period where I had only my phone to use to participate. I prefer my desktop. Anyway, first to that short list.
A. The reality is that there is no disadvantage which can't be overcome, and there's no shortage of examples demonstrating the truth of it. If one is unfortunate enough to be in an inner-city public school, there are still basics that can be mastered that allow an individual with drive to build upon those basics on their own. Unless one can point to a specific policy that impedes the ability of such people from advancing themselves, one cannot deny opportunities exist for all. One can say, "I only had a crappy school in a crappy area of few jobs." But those "truths" don't prevent a seriously driven person from finding a way to overcome. And should such a person not end up at the heights to which such a person aspired, such a person's status will nonetheless be improved due to being driven. My point denies the importance of focusing on "obstacles" as opposed to having one's "eyes on the prize" as it were. "Obstacles" are excuses.
B. In that same way, I don't see focusing on imbalances is a worthy endeavor given there will always be something which can be used to deflect from one's own failure to persist and persevere. The greatest obstacles are within. Is one fast enough, tall enough, smart enough, willing enough? How do we "fix" those more detrimental impediments to success? "WE" don't, can't and shouldn't, except to point out that the individual can determine if those obstacles will hold one back.
C. I'm going to set this one aside for now, because it really pisses me off that it was even brought up. More later.
D. This one is completely nonsensical in this day and age. Women and minorities have made enough advances in employment so as to make the very notion a lie. One can always find examples of women and minorities who have failed to advance themselves. But without exploring the details of their choices, it's a fool's errand. There will always be enough examples of those who have succeeded to make any whine the whine it is.
As regards point C, it pisses me off because it's just Dan being the asshat he's always been with regard to how he argues a point. Dan's views of wealth are idiotic and always have been, as has his perversion of Scripture to support his socialist point of view. He dares accuse the wealthy, as if they are no different than those in ancient times about whom Jesus and others spoke...specific people at that, of a kind that have always existed and always will. But Dan, who also perverts "to whom much has been given...", either has not been given the skills and intelligence to increase his own wealth, and thus pretends he eschews wealth, or...and I believe this far more likely...ignores his references to that passage for sanctimonious posturing. By itself, this would be of no significance, but for the fact that he supports policies such as progressive income taxes and other re-distributive mandates. He won't increase his own wealth to help the needy, but will instead stick his hand in the pockets of others while pretending he cares.
Now, he doubles down by suggesting that "We need a better system of hiring and employment that allows these folks to have the opportunity to do what they CAN do, not be cast out from the possibility of employment for what they can't do." Where does he get off demanding anything of anyone rather than stepping up himself and providing for those people about whom he pretends to care? It's one thing to encourage employers to hire the handicapped where possible. It's quite another to mandate changes to how one hires people to further one's business interests as if doing so won't impact one's own goals.
It makes me sick to hear again how Dan is more interested in making demands on others rather than on himself.
A. I’d quibble about emphatically saying the there is “no” situation that can’t be overcome, but that’s no reason not to try to minimize obstacles.
B. I’d suggest that acknowledging and trying to address imbalances isn’t necessarily the same as focusing on them.
C. I’m not seeing why trying to be creative and include as many people as possible in the economy and keeping as many people as possible off government assistance is a bad thing. Regardless of Dan’s asshattery.
D. Again, while I agree that the data suggests that the momentum is moving towards minorities and women in terms of college degrees, I’m not seeing a problem with continuing to try to get as many people as possible participating in the economy at the highest level possible.
A. I'd quibble about there being a difference between obstacles that can't be overcome versus those that simply aren't or haven't been. The problem here is not everyone is met with the same obstacles and those thought to be beyond overcoming haven't been attempted by everyone.
B. There will always be imbalances because that's life. If you think there are, shall we say, unfair, man-made obstacles, I would agree those can be removed. But they're rare given the whiny excuse-making about level playing fields, which is far more prevalent.
C. I'm criticizing Dan's suggestion that such is the obligation of everyone who builds up a business...that those like him dare demand that others who've made the effort, sacrificing and taken the risks must give those like him the time of day. Again, there's a huge difference between encouraging charity and forcing others to donate, be it money or positions within their companies. Those like Dan wish to come up with ideas they expect others to follow...they make promises they demand others keep. Those like Dan need to, like Dan, go pound sand.
D. As is true of the previous, that is largely the result of their own efforts more than providing for them as if they're all without the ability to succeed on their own. The disabled may need advocates. No one else does.
A. Yet, none of that militates against working to minimize obstacles.
B. Yet, that doesn’t counter my point that it’sAnd possible to see and address obstacles without obsessing over them.
C. And I’m saying that there’s no reason not to encourage creativity in addressing these issues.
D. Which,again, doesn’t demand that no effort be put into responding to moving forward.
I’m not suggesting, as Dan might, that a one size fits all, heavy handed, government mandate is the answer. There may be some role for government, but I’m thinking that creatively and out of the box thinking would be more effective.
Obviously, the "Unknown" is me, Marshal Art. What obstacles can government hope to eliminate that are not of its own making? Which obstacles would those be?
I’m fine with the government eliminating the obstacles it’s responsible for and their consequences. Beyond that, I’d have to look at individual examples.
Post a Comment