Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 12:45 am

Castille, I do believe that I living in poverty at this moment in time. I have tried to do what I can to dig out of that hole including starting my own business which left me further in debt.

Lightbearer, the definition of 'poor' is pretty subjective, each person has their own guage. But I do think that there are certain things that indicate a degree of poverty that is not something that should be suffered by anyone. I know there are many out there that will say "that's not my problem, people must choose to live that way cause we are all free to be billionaires if we wanted to and there are no such things as accidents."

I'm 33 years old. I've seen things that stun people twice my age. I've watched many people die before my own eyes, I've seen people do unspeakable things to other people, I've lived on the streets, I've lived in some of the worst places in America, worked in places where people were killed by the faulty machines and nobody cared... All of those things I saw before I turned 21. I still get the privilage to see humanity at it's worse all the time, even to this day. Poverty, or should I say, the things that poverty do to the human spirit, is not something that should ever be glorified or envied, it is a horrible thing that devours you, that you never part from fully whole.

Sure, I might talk about the lessons I learned from it, namely how to survive it, but those are lessons that were not worth the cost and there was no choice in that matter and it wasn't an accident even though I did not end up that way by choice. That's why, when I had been able, I volunteered to help others, I took kids in who were on the streets, I fed those who couldn't feed themselves, and even to this day I help others as much as I can... Because I know there are few that have it in their hearts to do so. Because I know how it feels to be helped, and I want to give that to others. That is probably the only lesson that was worth it out of all the brutality I've learned.

Point is, I guess, yes, it was WORSE than unappealing, what I've had to do in life to survive I would not wish on anyone, yes, even those I disagree with here. That there are things that can and do happen beyond one's control and these things will take you down pretty damned fast, right down to the streets.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Lightbearer, the definition of 'poor' is pretty subjective, each person has their own guage. But I do think that there are certain things that indicate a degree of poverty that is not something that should be suffered by anyone. I know there are many out there that will say "that's not my problem, people must choose to live that way cause we are all free to be billionaires if we wanted to and there are no such things as accidents."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Which is why I asked for a clarification of what the intended meaning of "poor" was in this context. While "poor" is relative, there is no need for it to be meaningless. As for your statements regarding poverty, the same problem exists since "poverty" has not been given any explanation either. If we take the federal standards, which is the most common use of the term in the states, then I have lived in poverty all of my adult life until this year, and quite frankly I will tell you that I have lived quite a good life. These have been happy times and I would not trade them for whatever fancy shoes, new car, or whatever is supposed to take the place of honest experience.

It seems that you are trying to imply that no one actually makes decisions that result in living at or below the poverty level. This is clearly false. I know a large number of people who have made such choices.

The terrible things you describe are completely separate from lack of wealth (poverty). I too have lived in conditions that most would find appalling, surrounded by actions and behaviors that others find unsettling. But I recognize that choices have been made and I also recognize that the cruel things that people do to others has nothing at all to do with the amount of money they have. After all the Bush family is rich, but look at what they have done.. or take the Kennedys, Feinsteins, or any number of others who are incredibly wealthy by any standard. And of course such behaviors are not limited to the states..

As for your remarks on what you find unappealing, I must point out that you did not address the point I actually made, that being that it is a false assumption to assume that all who make choices to live in poverty, do so unwillingly and live in what THEY consider to be an unappealing situation.

How many artists do you know that live above the poverty line? What of muscians? Philosophers? Writers? Poets? What of those who simply wish to live by the labor of their own hands? The fact is that a great many people live below the poverty line because of conscious choices, and others for foolish choices.

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 03:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)

Which is why I asked for a clarification of what the intended meaning of "poor" was in this context. While "poor" is relative, there is no need for it to be meaningless. As for your statements regarding poverty, the same problem exists since "poverty" has not been given any explanation either. If we take the federal standards, which is the most common use of the term in the states, then I have lived in poverty all of my adult life until this year, and quite frankly I will tell you that I have lived quite a good life. These have been happy times and I would not trade them for whatever fancy shoes, new car, or whatever is supposed to take the place of honest experience.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It's still relative, some people feel medical care is a necessity, especially when they are suffering, others who can afford it but are healthy see it as a luxury. Poverty isn't the inability to buy new shoes or a new tv, poverty is a matter of true suffering, like going a few days without food because you can't afford that, while anarexic might call that a diet, try telling a four year old that who is crying because of hunger pangs. Yes, it's all relative, there is always a way to justify or attempt to diminish or make light of the suffering of others.

Of course, as I explained before, I have no desire for things beyond what any reasonable person would need, when we have more than what we need, we share that with others that do need.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

It seems that you are trying to imply that no one actually makes decisions that result in living at or below the poverty level. This is clearly false. I know a large number of people who have made such choices.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, some choose to live in poverty. Do children choose to live in poverty? Did they become impoverished by making bad choices?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

The terrible things you describe are completely separate from lack of wealth (poverty). I too have lived in conditions that most would find appalling, surrounded by actions and behaviors that others find unsettling. But I recognize that choices have been made and I also recognize that the cruel things that people do to others has nothing at all to do with the amount of money they have. After all the Bush family is rich, but look at what they have done.. or take the Kennedys, Feinsteins, or any number of others who are incredibly wealthy by any standard. And of course such behaviors are not limited to the states..<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

They are not seperate, but they are much more common and the poor are much less protected from those horrors than those who live in gated communities protected by armed guards.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

As for your remarks on what you find unappealing, I must point out that you did not address the point I actually made, that being that it is a false assumption to assume that all who make choices to live in poverty, do so unwillingly and live in what THEY consider to be an unappealing situation. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, I still find flaw with your assumption that all people in poverty make that choice or did something to deserve it. Once we deal with that, we can move on.

Feb 17, 2004, 10:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, I still find flaw with your assumption that all people in poverty make that choice or did something to deserve it. Once we deal with that, we can move on.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not only did I NOT make this assumption, I was quite explicit in responding to YOUR universal assumption about those without wealth.

As long as we pretend that no one who fits this as of yet undefined and therefore meaningless term "poverty" has taken any actions at all that have as consequences the absence of some arbitrary level of income, then we will necessarily tilting at windmills.

Again, part of the reason that I have asked for clarification on the terms is so that we can all understand exactly to what we are referring. Only then can we start to examine the issue in a meaninful way. Until then we are simply emoting and opining without basis or common ground.

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 10:34 am

Poverty, poor, wealthy... these are all relative terms, they are subjective values, simple concepts that describe one person's perception of another person's or one's own situation of being at any given point of time.

Some view being in poverty as existing at a level below a certain income point that is usually understood as a level to have basic services that most in a society enjoy. Some view poverty as have a dearth of actuall asset wealth. Some accept a combination view, some see it an entirely different way.

I view poverty a specific way, if you want to accept my definition then that's fine, if not, more power to you, I certainly won't be able to convince you otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I view poverty as an involuntary situation in which any person is forced to endure a period time lacking the necessities of life within a given society which I described earlier. (shelter, food, suitable clothing, medical care when ill, potable water, heat in cold environs, the permission to ply a trade gainfully, or even simple human dignity and freedom.)

There is one caveat though... For some who choose poverty it's not necessarily a choice of free will. There are many who lack the faculties to make such choices and end up in dire poverty due to that inability. (for example, a significant percentage of the chronic homeless have mental disorders that inhibit their ability to make informed choices about their lives).

Like I said, I come from a different perspective, so I seriously doubt that you and I, or that most people here and I, are going to find any common ground at all.

Feb 17, 2004, 10:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Poverty, poor, wealthy... these are all relative terms, they are subjective values, simple concepts that describe one person's perception of another person's or one's own situation of being at any given point of time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

yet again, this is why I have asked for some clarification so that we are not talking past one another.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I view poverty as an involuntary situation in which any person is forced to endure a period time lacking the necessities of life within a given society which I described earlier. (shelter, food, suitable clothing, medical care when ill, potable water, heat in cold environs, the permission to ply a trade gainfully, or even simple human dignity and freedom.)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So you are referring only to prisoners? What about those who have little but are not behind bars?

How is the involuntary condition not question begging?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Like I said, I come from a different perspective, so I seriously doubt that you and I, or that most people here and I, are going to find any common ground at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well I have matched you experience for experience with regard to living in such conditions so the dismissal about coming from different backgrouds is meaningless, but more importantly there is common ground available to ALL rational beings: reason and reality. It is to this common ground that I appealed.

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 11:04 am

Lightbearer, let's just say that I am almost certain that your background is vastly different than mine, I know your perspective is.

Hmmm, is the prisoner the only person who is not free? Isn't poverty a prison in itself? Sure, there is possibility of escape or parole, but it's starting at a disadvantage and it's always waiting to suck you right back in. That's how I can tell our perspectives are different, you don't FEAR that state of being, you are not AFRAID of being in poverty and all that it implies.

When you work to climb out of that state of being it's a climb of fear. Your motivation is a type of coersion, work hard or become poor again. It's a great motivator, yes, I worked hard to remain employed when I had the chance, 100+ hour weeks, 72 hours straight without sleep at times. I did the work of three or more people, and I was good at what I did. In the end, even that wasn't enough, it turns out I'm still a prisoner, still exploited by those who would gain at my disadvantage, that disadvantage being that I have to work to survive, others do not.

Poverty itself is a sort of prison, it is that place that your boss will hold over your head when you don't take a paycut, or work slave hours, or kiss his ass. It is a form of punishment, and it is very punishing, to doubt that is very telling. Anyone who questions that such a life isn't detrimental shows me they haven't been there, they haven't been shot at or had to shoot back, they didn't have to dig through garbage, they didn't have to fend off people who would have raped and killed them, they didn't have the shit kicked out of them by the police just for being poor and in the wrong part of town, they weren't ignored by the rest of society, they didn't starve, they didn't know the pain.

Yeah, pain is relative.... So is fear... But, I just don't believe that you and I are coming from the same perspective and I really don't see that much common ground between us. I agree to disagree with you, that's the best you and I are going to say to each other at this point.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 17, 2004, 11:04 am

Prisoners? The hell are you smoking? He's referring to people below a base quality of life - without the essentials. I mean, sure, I have a roof over my head and food, but god forbid I get sick...

Feb 17, 2004, 12:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Hmmm, is the prisoner the only person who is not free? Isn't poverty a prison in itself? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

To assert such you would have to employ circular reasoning, recall that a condition of your definition of poverty is the "involuntary situation in which any person is forced to endure a period time lacking the necessities of life within a given society which I described earlier. (shelter, food, suitable clothing, medical care when ill, potable water, heat in cold environs, the permission to ply a trade gainfully, or even simple human dignity and freedom.)" The only situation in which these conditions can exist, are in a prisoner situation.

The key elements you attach that necessitate this conclusion are the involuntary nature and the use of force.

And no, poverty in any objective sense is not and cannot be a prison.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That's how I can tell our perspectives are different, you don't FEAR that state of being, you are not AFRAID of being in poverty and all that it implies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

People tend to fear the unknown. Living without is well known to me.

I wholeheartedly agree that our perspectives are different. I have been in the state of poverty and until this year still enjoyed that state of affairs. Even now I could very easily drop back down quite easily. I have lived and experienced these conditions and recognize that there is no vast conspiracy to hold me back, to force choices upon me, to remove all responsibility from my life. Yes we do come from different perspectives, but that is not fatal to honest civil intellectual discussion. Fortunately there IS a common ground upon which ALL rational beings can communicate, if only they are willing: reason and reality. I am appealing to this common ground. Let us apply single standards, let us abide by the dictates of reason, and let us allow reality to be the final arbitrar of truth, even if we do not like the truth.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:25 pm

Rebel,

You can see from his reponse that in fact he is asserting far more than merely being below some arbitrary line, but instead describes situations which can only exist in a prisoner situation. I pointed that out, hoping that he would clarify and correct the original statement, for there is indeed something to which we could meaningfully refer by the term "poverty" something similar to what you yourself referred, but the explanation clarified that indeed ONLY an extreme prisoner situation could possibly qualify as "poverty" using the criteria presented.

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 12:26 pm

As I said, at best we are going to agree to disagree, there is no common ground between us because we live in seperate realities.

Good luck to you.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:41 pm

Reality is of necessity singular. When you find that your desired worldview does not match reality, abandon that worldview, not reality, for reality is never in error.

The common ground between us remains the same: reason and reality. I will wait there if you wish to have a meaningful discussion.

syracusa · Feb 17, 2004, 01:11 pm

Packratt,

I have been following your conversation with Lightbearer and the gracious way you ended it definitely makes you the "winner" in my eyes. (Not that you intended to engage in any race here).

But I can't help dropping my two cents...which are not really my true cents...more like my frustration with individuals like Lightbearer who are dead set on insisting that a lot of the S*** that happens to disadvantaged people is simply a matter of their own choices.

God...do I get frustrated with self-righteous cases like this! But I mean...
F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-E-D!!! (sure...a matter of my own choice, after all):))).

I trully believe that there are only two types of people who are psychologically inclined to adopt this sort of "choice" beliefs:

1. The type whose background has thrown them in a relatively cushy position from the moment of their birth.
2. The type who may have started at a relative disadvantage but somewhere on the way, stepped into pure luck in one form or another...which combined with some effort on their part...suddenly made them feel entitled to wear the "Mr. Self-Righteous" crown...who just made "the right choices".

Never mind that there are tons of people out there who put in the effort and make all the GD "right" choices ...but never step into that piece of luck - the one thing that at the end of the day, makes or breaks you.
That piece of luck "Mr. Self-Righteous" encountered and the others did not.

But this is all it takes to allow these individuals to go on and on about "right choices" until they get saliva bubbles around their mouths.
I guess it is just convenienent for them to only focus on that tiny percentage of ill-willed, genuine losers who literally refuse to do anything to pull themselves out of the gutter.
However, what concerns me most is THE OTHER percentage of "losers", the much larger one ...the ones who do everythying that is humanly possible but never get a break anyway.

As for my background (if anyone reading wonders)...it was relatively privileged from the moment of birth. Not REALLY privileged, only relatively privileged. And it definitely helped. Looking back, I can see clearly how most of my victories and triumphs were maybe 30-40% personal effort and 50-60% having departed from the "right" kind of level in the social stratum.

I continue to see tons of individuals everyday who put in way more effort than I would ever be capable of putting in (loser weak me!!) and they are still far from obtaining the results that I have.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:25 pm

But aren't I supposed to inherit something good, be "blessed?" or something? (Or was that just the "poor in spirit?")

Thank Gawd for the Bible, otherwise I'd be in a world of sh&T!

Feb 17, 2004, 02:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But I can't help dropping my two cents...which are not really my true cents...more like my frustration with individuals like Lightbearer who are dead set on insisting that a lot of the S*** that happens to disadvantaged people is simply a matter of their own choices.

God...do I get frustrated with self-righteous cases like this! But I mean...
F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-E-D!!! (sure...a matter of my own choice, after all))).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Frustrating is constantly being mischaracterized.. I did not adopt the position which you and PR attribute to me, as I have already made perfectly clear. I have noted that in fact, contrary to the protestation to the contrary and to the universal claims that have been repeatedly made, there are those who chose not to value money and possessions as the greatest of all values. There are those, such as the examples I have already given previously to no avail (painters, sculptors, other artists, muscians, philosophers, etc) who consciously make choices that result in low income and low degree of possessions. It is also true that many others simply make choices that result in similar situation. I simply took issue with the pretense that all of those who make less than some arbitrary line, are there because of the coercion of others and that they are forceibly prevented from acting so as to improve their position.

But no where will you find these universal claims in what I have written. No where can you find even a hint of support for your mischaracterization of what I actually said. No where can you actually find anything that could possibly be interpreted by any reasonable individual to say "All of those below some arbitrary and as of yet undefined line, are necessarily there by their own choice and deserve anything and everything that happens to them."

No self-righteousness, only the willingness and ability to allow reality to determine truth, not preconceived notions and positions.

So rather than rail at strawmen of your own creation, why not simply address the rather modest points that were made, or the questions of clarification which have been repeatedly asked and repeatedly ignored?

syracusa · Feb 17, 2004, 05:43 pm

Oh, OK. Sorry. I got you - no hostility here, Lightbearer.

You were saying that there are SOME that make conscious decisions that result in low incomes (painter, philosopher).
I have two comments on this - (but yes, now I understand better where you were coming from).

1. First, this kind of people are few. They are the intellectual/spiritual type who often get kicks out of making relative deprivation a virtue (in reality they have no choice if they want to keep doing what they do).
That gets me to the second point.

2. This type of people love that specific occupation so much that they are willing to accept the relative poverty that comes with it (often grudgingly!!!).
HOWEVER if one of these painters, philosophers etc happens to get recognition and the money that comes with it ...well you know what follows. I am yet to find one that would act all "Mother Teresa-ish" about it and just refuse the money.

The number of people who belong to this unusual category you made reference to is so small that it doesn't even count, in my book.
But what do you make of people like Packratt who don't care for poverty that much yet they are kept into it by the realities of an exploitive "free market"?

THAT'S what I want to know.
Yeah...some people's poverty is a result of their decision (wanting to keep doing something that pays c*** but they adore doing).

But MOST people's poverty is NOT a result of their own choices. And that's what matters to me. No "rational choice" thinker would be able to convince me otherwise - even if they spent 4 lifetimes theorizing on the issue.

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 06:00 pm

Thanks syracusa for presenting my agrument in a different term, but it's still the same argument and concession that I've repeatedly made to LB.

1. there are some people who choose to live in relative poverty due to their belief system, (mother theresa or a primitivist for example).

2. there are some people who live in poverty not because of direct choice. (I want to be poor so I'll be an artist) but are in poverty because they had faith in their skills and that did not yet come to fruition (I thought I could make it as an artist but it's not working out yet).

3. There are some people who live in poverty because of things beyond their control even though that person might insist it is their choice. (the mentally ill homeless person)

4. There are also people who choose something that leaves them impoverished as a secondary effect from the act of choosing that thing. (the drug addict, the gambling addict), but this one is debateable because it depends on the ammount of control that person has over themselves, sometimes such addictions are a manifestation of mental disorders, so it's an 'choice' by some individuals, and a non-free will choice by others.

The psuedo-free marketeers insist there is a fifth catagory, that encompasses ALL people who live in poverty. That they all chose that lifestyle so there should be no compassion, no charity, and that this gives them the moral right to profit off their misery and put more people into that standard of living.

Of course, I have been assuming that LB believes in supposition #5 because while he repetitively insists we accept his opinion, he has yet to consider our opinion that no rational person directly accepts the burdens of poverty except in relatively rare cases.

Feb 17, 2004, 06:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The number of people who belong to this unusual category you made reference to is so small that it doesn't even count, in my book.
But what do you make of people like Packratt who don't care for poverty that much yet they are kept into it by the realities of an exploitive "free market"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Can you offer some sort of explanation of "realities?" There is no meaningful plural of the word "reality".

Dismissing those clear examples which stand directly in opposition to unfounded beliefs, does not in fact strengthen those beliefs with regard to truth.

BTW nothing is gained by blind ideology such as is exemplified in the false and quite frankly absurd description of the free market (which exists no where currently anyway) as "exploitive."

The assumption/conclusions were made that ALL individuals who live in the still undefined "poverty" are FORCED to remain in INVOLINTARY situations. Yet no matter the number of counter-examples I have offered, these assumptions are simply repeated.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
2. This type of people love that specific occupation so much that they are willing to accept the relative poverty that comes with it (often grudgingly!!!).
HOWEVER if one of these painters, philosophers etc happens to get recognition and the money that comes with it ...well you know what follows. I am yet to find one that would act all "Mother Teresa-ish" about it and just refuse the money. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And you also have yet to find one to which this windfall has come.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But what do you make of people like Packratt who don't care for poverty that much yet they are kept into it by the realities of an exploitive "free market"?

THAT'S what I want to know.
Yeah...some people's poverty is a result of their decision (wanting to keep doing something that pays c*** but they adore doing).

But MOST people's poverty is NOT a result of their own choices. And that's what matters to me. No "rational choice" thinker would be able to convince me otherwise - even if they spent 4 lifetimes theorizing on the issue.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

First Packratt has yet to offer any sort of meaningful definition such that we can actually verify that ANY such people exist. Until we have an idea of whom we are speaking, we cannot meaninfully comment on their nature.

Upon what do you base this assumption that most people in poverty (and how are you using the word?) are not there as a result of their choices? And why is it that you will not allow reality to change your mind, but instead stipulate that you will simply hold onto the belief regardless of the truth of that belief?

I have yet to offer any theorizing though I have a great deal of personal experience and examples which can be offered.

Feb 17, 2004, 06:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Of course, I have been assuming that LB believes in supposition #5 because while he repetitively insists we accept his opinion, he has yet to consider our opinion that no rational person directly accepts the burdens of poverty except in relatively rare cases.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is completely dishonest. I have not blindly accepted your proclamations in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence, but this does not qualify for not considering your claims. How could I have refuted your claims had I not considered them? BTW given that this is the first instance in which you have dropped the universal claim, the claim here is more than a little disingenuous.

I am glad that you now acknowledge that despite the repeated clarifications, you still assumed a position which was not my own, nor similar to my own. Perhaps now we can move forward discussing what each has actually said.

m5lange1 · Feb 17, 2004, 07:17 pm

Agreed Pacrat, especialy with your point #3.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
3. There are some people who live in poverty because of things beyond their control even though that person might insist it is their choice. (the mentally ill homeless person)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I respect your opinions Pakrat.

The title of this poll is "Are you poor?".

Not: "Do you understand the true nature of poverty and do you fit that definition?"

Not: "After we all decide by committee what we mean by poor do you qualify?"

To me the question "Are you poor? asks how you see yourself, not how you compare to an arbitrary, or defined standard. (shrug) I could be wrong.

View Poll Results: Are you poor?
	0	0%
	0	0%
I'm homeless.	1	1.79%
I only have the absolute necessities: shelter, bread, and water.	4	7.14%
I'm wealthier than most of the world. I have a roof, food, computer, electricity, and clothes.	33	58.93%
I'm rich enough to afford college. I even go to college.	17	30.36%
I'm so rich Mr Bill Gates calls me "Sir".	1	1.79%
Voters: 56. You may not vote

Feb 17, 2004, 12:45 am	#41 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Castille, I do believe that I living in poverty at this moment in time. I have tried to do what I can to dig out of that hole including starting my own business which left me further in debt. Lightbearer, the definition of 'poor' is pretty subjective, each person has their own guage. But I do think that there are certain things that indicate a degree of poverty that is not something that should be suffered by anyone. I know there are many out there that will say "that's not my problem, people must choose to live that way cause we are all free to be billionaires if we wanted to and there are no such things as accidents." I'm 33 years old. I've seen things that stun people twice my age. I've watched many people die before my own eyes, I've seen people do unspeakable things to other people, I've lived on the streets, I've lived in some of the worst places in America, worked in places where people were killed by the faulty machines and nobody cared... All of those things I saw before I turned 21. I still get the privilage to see humanity at it's worse all the time, even to this day. Poverty, or should I say, the things that poverty do to the human spirit, is not something that should ever be glorified or envied, it is a horrible thing that devours you, that you never part from fully whole. Sure, I might talk about the lessons I learned from it, namely how to survive it, but those are lessons that were not worth the cost and there was no choice in that matter and it wasn't an accident even though I did not end up that way by choice. That's why, when I had been able, I volunteered to help others, I took kids in who were on the streets, I fed those who couldn't feed themselves, and even to this day I help others as much as I can... Because I know there are few that have it in their hearts to do so. Because I know how it feels to be helped, and I want to give that to others. That is probably the only lesson that was worth it out of all the brutality I've learned. Point is, I guess, yes, it was WORSE than unappealing, what I've had to do in life to survive I would not wish on anyone, yes, even those I disagree with here. That there are things that can and do happen beyond one's control and these things will take you down pretty damned fast, right down to the streets. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 17, 2004, 01:46 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Lightbearer, the definition of 'poor' is pretty subjective, each person has their own guage. But I do think that there are certain things that indicate a degree of poverty that is not something that should be suffered by anyone. I know there are many out there that will say "that's not my problem, people must choose to live that way cause we are all free to be billionaires if we wanted to and there are no such things as accidents."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Which is why I asked for a clarification of what the intended meaning of "poor" was in this context. While "poor" is relative, there is no need for it to be meaningless. As for your statements regarding poverty, the same problem exists since "poverty" has not been given any explanation either. If we take the federal standards, which is the most common use of the term in the states, then I have lived in poverty all of my adult life until this year, and quite frankly I will tell you that I have lived quite a good life. These have been happy times and I would not trade them for whatever fancy shoes, new car, or whatever is supposed to take the place of honest experience. It seems that you are trying to imply that no one actually makes decisions that result in living at or below the poverty level. This is clearly false. I know a large number of people who have made such choices. The terrible things you describe are completely separate from lack of wealth (poverty). I too have lived in conditions that most would find appalling, surrounded by actions and behaviors that others find unsettling. But I recognize that choices have been made and I also recognize that the cruel things that people do to others has nothing at all to do with the amount of money they have. After all the Bush family is rich, but look at what they have done.. or take the Kennedys, Feinsteins, or any number of others who are incredibly wealthy by any standard. And of course such behaviors are not limited to the states.. As for your remarks on what you find unappealing, I must point out that you did not address the point I actually made, that being that it is a false assumption to assume that all who make choices to live in poverty, do so unwillingly and live in what THEY consider to be an unappealing situation. How many artists do you know that live above the poverty line? What of muscians? Philosophers? Writers? Poets? What of those who simply wish to live by the labor of their own hands? The fact is that a great many people live below the poverty line because of conscious choices, and others for foolish choices.

Feb 17, 2004, 03:33 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Which is why I asked for a clarification of what the intended meaning of "poor" was in this context. While "poor" is relative, there is no need for it to be meaningless. As for your statements regarding poverty, the same problem exists since "poverty" has not been given any explanation either. If we take the federal standards, which is the most common use of the term in the states, then I have lived in poverty all of my adult life until this year, and quite frankly I will tell you that I have lived quite a good life. These have been happy times and I would not trade them for whatever fancy shoes, new car, or whatever is supposed to take the place of honest experience.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's still relative, some people feel medical care is a necessity, especially when they are suffering, others who can afford it but are healthy see it as a luxury. Poverty isn't the inability to buy new shoes or a new tv, poverty is a matter of true suffering, like going a few days without food because you can't afford that, while anarexic might call that a diet, try telling a four year old that who is crying because of hunger pangs. Yes, it's all relative, there is always a way to justify or attempt to diminish or make light of the suffering of others. Of course, as I explained before, I have no desire for things beyond what any reasonable person would need, when we have more than what we need, we share that with others that do need. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by It seems that you are trying to imply that no one actually makes decisions that result in living at or below the poverty level. This is clearly false. I know a large number of people who have made such choices.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, some choose to live in poverty. Do children choose to live in poverty? Did they become impoverished by making bad choices? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The terrible things you describe are completely separate from lack of wealth (poverty). I too have lived in conditions that most would find appalling, surrounded by actions and behaviors that others find unsettling. But I recognize that choices have been made and I also recognize that the cruel things that people do to others has nothing at all to do with the amount of money they have. After all the Bush family is rich, but look at what they have done.. or take the Kennedys, Feinsteins, or any number of others who are incredibly wealthy by any standard. And of course such behaviors are not limited to the states..<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They are not seperate, but they are much more common and the poor are much less protected from those horrors than those who live in gated communities protected by armed guards. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As for your remarks on what you find unappealing, I must point out that you did not address the point I actually made, that being that it is a false assumption to assume that all who make choices to live in poverty, do so unwillingly and live in what THEY consider to be an unappealing situation. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, I still find flaw with your assumption that all people in poverty make that choice or did something to deserve it. Once we deal with that, we can move on. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 17, 2004, 10:18 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, I still find flaw with your assumption that all people in poverty make that choice or did something to deserve it. Once we deal with that, we can move on.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not only did I NOT make this assumption, I was quite explicit in responding to YOUR universal assumption about those without wealth. As long as we pretend that no one who fits this as of yet undefined and therefore meaningless term "poverty" has taken any actions at all that have as consequences the absence of some arbitrary level of income, then we will necessarily tilting at windmills. Again, part of the reason that I have asked for clarification on the terms is so that we can all understand exactly to what we are referring. Only then can we start to examine the issue in a meaninful way. Until then we are simply emoting and opining without basis or common ground.

Feb 17, 2004, 10:34 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Poverty, poor, wealthy... these are all relative terms, they are subjective values, simple concepts that describe one person's perception of another person's or one's own situation of being at any given point of time. Some view being in poverty as existing at a level below a certain income point that is usually understood as a level to have basic services that most in a society enjoy. Some view poverty as have a dearth of actuall asset wealth. Some accept a combination view, some see it an entirely different way. I view poverty a specific way, if you want to accept my definition then that's fine, if not, more power to you, I certainly won't be able to convince you otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. I view poverty as an involuntary situation in which any person is forced to endure a period time lacking the necessities of life within a given society which I described earlier. (shelter, food, suitable clothing, medical care when ill, potable water, heat in cold environs, the permission to ply a trade gainfully, or even simple human dignity and freedom.) There is one caveat though... For some who choose poverty it's not necessarily a choice of free will. There are many who lack the faculties to make such choices and end up in dire poverty due to that inability. (for example, a significant percentage of the chronic homeless have mental disorders that inhibit their ability to make informed choices about their lives). Like I said, I come from a different perspective, so I seriously doubt that you and I, or that most people here and I, are going to find any common ground at all. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 17, 2004, 10:44 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Poverty, poor, wealthy... these are all relative terms, they are subjective values, simple concepts that describe one person's perception of another person's or one's own situation of being at any given point of time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yet again, this is why I have asked for some clarification so that we are not talking past one another. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I view poverty as an involuntary situation in which any person is forced to endure a period time lacking the necessities of life within a given society which I described earlier. (shelter, food, suitable clothing, medical care when ill, potable water, heat in cold environs, the permission to ply a trade gainfully, or even simple human dignity and freedom.)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you are referring only to prisoners? What about those who have little but are not behind bars? How is the involuntary condition not question begging? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Like I said, I come from a different perspective, so I seriously doubt that you and I, or that most people here and I, are going to find any common ground at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well I have matched you experience for experience with regard to living in such conditions so the dismissal about coming from different backgrouds is meaningless, but more importantly there is common ground available to ALL rational beings: reason and reality. It is to this common ground that I appealed.

Feb 17, 2004, 11:04 am	#47 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Lightbearer, let's just say that I am almost certain that your background is vastly different than mine, I know your perspective is. Hmmm, is the prisoner the only person who is not free? Isn't poverty a prison in itself? Sure, there is possibility of escape or parole, but it's starting at a disadvantage and it's always waiting to suck you right back in. That's how I can tell our perspectives are different, you don't FEAR that state of being, you are not AFRAID of being in poverty and all that it implies. When you work to climb out of that state of being it's a climb of fear. Your motivation is a type of coersion, work hard or become poor again. It's a great motivator, yes, I worked hard to remain employed when I had the chance, 100+ hour weeks, 72 hours straight without sleep at times. I did the work of three or more people, and I was good at what I did. In the end, even that wasn't enough, it turns out I'm still a prisoner, still exploited by those who would gain at my disadvantage, that disadvantage being that I have to work to survive, others do not. Poverty itself is a sort of prison, it is that place that your boss will hold over your head when you don't take a paycut, or work slave hours, or kiss his ass. It is a form of punishment, and it is very punishing, to doubt that is very telling. Anyone who questions that such a life isn't detrimental shows me they haven't been there, they haven't been shot at or had to shoot back, they didn't have to dig through garbage, they didn't have to fend off people who would have raped and killed them, they didn't have the shit kicked out of them by the police just for being poor and in the wrong part of town, they weren't ignored by the rest of society, they didn't starve, they didn't know the pain. Yeah, pain is relative.... So is fear... But, I just don't believe that you and I are coming from the same perspective and I really don't see that much common ground between us. I agree to disagree with you, that's the best you and I are going to say to each other at this point. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 17, 2004, 11:04 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Prisoners? The hell are you smoking? He's referring to people below a base quality of life - without the essentials. I mean, sure, I have a roof over my head and food, but god forbid I get sick... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:23 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Hmmm, is the prisoner the only person who is not free? Isn't poverty a prison in itself? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> To assert such you would have to employ circular reasoning, recall that a condition of your definition of poverty is the "involuntary situation in which any person is forced to endure a period time lacking the necessities of life within a given society which I described earlier. (shelter, food, suitable clothing, medical care when ill, potable water, heat in cold environs, the permission to ply a trade gainfully, or even simple human dignity and freedom.)" The only situation in which these conditions can exist, are in a prisoner situation. The key elements you attach that necessitate this conclusion are the involuntary nature and the use of force. And no, poverty in any objective sense is not and cannot be a prison. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by That's how I can tell our perspectives are different, you don't FEAR that state of being, you are not AFRAID of being in poverty and all that it implies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> People tend to fear the unknown. Living without is well known to me. I wholeheartedly agree that our perspectives are different. I have been in the state of poverty and until this year still enjoyed that state of affairs. Even now I could very easily drop back down quite easily. I have lived and experienced these conditions and recognize that there is no vast conspiracy to hold me back, to force choices upon me, to remove all responsibility from my life. Yes we do come from different perspectives, but that is not fatal to honest civil intellectual discussion. Fortunately there IS a common ground upon which ALL rational beings can communicate, if only they are willing: reason and reality. I am appealing to this common ground. Let us apply single standards, let us abide by the dictates of reason, and let us allow reality to be the final arbitrar of truth, even if we do not like the truth.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:25 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Rebel, You can see from his reponse that in fact he is asserting far more than merely being below some arbitrary line, but instead describes situations which can only exist in a prisoner situation. I pointed that out, hoping that he would clarify and correct the original statement, for there is indeed something to which we could meaningfully refer by the term "poverty" something similar to what you yourself referred, but the explanation clarified that indeed ONLY an extreme prisoner situation could possibly qualify as "poverty" using the criteria presented.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:26 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	As I said, at best we are going to agree to disagree, there is no common ground between us because we live in seperate realities. Good luck to you. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 17, 2004, 12:41 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Reality is of necessity singular. When you find that your desired worldview does not match reality, abandon that worldview, not reality, for reality is never in error. The common ground between us remains the same: reason and reality. I will wait there if you wish to have a meaningful discussion.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:11 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
syracusa Igneous Magma Posts: 623	Packratt, I have been following your conversation with Lightbearer and the gracious way you ended it definitely makes you the "winner" in my eyes. (Not that you intended to engage in any race here). But I can't help dropping my two cents...which are not really my true cents...more like my frustration with individuals like Lightbearer who are dead set on insisting that a lot of the S*** that happens to disadvantaged people is simply a matter of their own choices. God...do I get frustrated with self-righteous cases like this! But I mean... F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-E-D!!! (sure...a matter of my own choice, after all):))). I trully believe that there are only two types of people who are psychologically inclined to adopt this sort of "choice" beliefs: 1. The type whose background has thrown them in a relatively cushy position from the moment of their birth. 2. The type who may have started at a relative disadvantage but somewhere on the way, stepped into pure luck in one form or another...which combined with some effort on their part...suddenly made them feel entitled to wear the "Mr. Self-Righteous" crown...who just made "the right choices". Never mind that there are tons of people out there who put in the effort and make all the GD "right" choices ...but never step into that piece of luck - the one thing that at the end of the day, makes or breaks you. That piece of luck "Mr. Self-Righteous" encountered and the others did not. But this is all it takes to allow these individuals to go on and on about "right choices" until they get saliva bubbles around their mouths. I guess it is just convenienent for them to only focus on that tiny percentage of ill-willed, genuine losers who literally refuse to do anything to pull themselves out of the gutter. However, what concerns me most is THE OTHER percentage of "losers", the much larger one ...the ones who do everythying that is humanly possible but never get a break anyway. As for my background (if anyone reading wonders)...it was relatively privileged from the moment of birth. Not REALLY privileged, only relatively privileged. And it definitely helped. Looking back, I can see clearly how most of my victories and triumphs were maybe 30-40% personal effort and 50-60% having departed from the "right" kind of level in the social stratum. I continue to see tons of individuals everyday who put in way more effort than I would ever be capable of putting in (loser weak me!!) and they are still far from obtaining the results that I have. COMPETITION BRINGS THE BEST IN PRODUCTS AND THE WORST IN RELATIONSHIPS.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:25 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
SecondComing Guest Posts: n/a	But aren't I supposed to inherit something good, be "blessed?" or something? (Or was that just the "poor in spirit?") Thank Gawd for the Bible, otherwise I'd be in a world of sh&T!

Feb 17, 2004, 02:27 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But I can't help dropping my two cents...which are not really my true cents...more like my frustration with individuals like Lightbearer who are dead set on insisting that a lot of the S*** that happens to disadvantaged people is simply a matter of their own choices. God...do I get frustrated with self-righteous cases like this! But I mean... F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-E-D!!! (sure...a matter of my own choice, after all))).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Frustrating is constantly being mischaracterized.. I did not adopt the position which you and PR attribute to me, as I have already made perfectly clear. I have noted that in fact, contrary to the protestation to the contrary and to the universal claims that have been repeatedly made, there are those who chose not to value money and possessions as the greatest of all values. There are those, such as the examples I have already given previously to no avail (painters, sculptors, other artists, muscians, philosophers, etc) who consciously make choices that result in low income and low degree of possessions. It is also true that many others simply make choices that result in similar situation. I simply took issue with the pretense that all of those who make less than some arbitrary line, are there because of the coercion of others and that they are forceibly prevented from acting so as to improve their position. But no where will you find these universal claims in what I have written. No where can you find even a hint of support for your mischaracterization of what I actually said. No where can you actually find anything that could possibly be interpreted by any reasonable individual to say "All of those below some arbitrary and as of yet undefined line, are necessarily there by their own choice and deserve anything and everything that happens to them." No self-righteousness, only the willingness and ability to allow reality to determine truth, not preconceived notions and positions. So rather than rail at strawmen of your own creation, why not simply address the rather modest points that were made, or the questions of clarification which have been repeatedly asked and repeatedly ignored?

Feb 17, 2004, 05:43 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
syracusa Igneous Magma Posts: 623	Oh, OK. Sorry. I got you - no hostility here, Lightbearer. You were saying that there are SOME that make conscious decisions that result in low incomes (painter, philosopher). I have two comments on this - (but yes, now I understand better where you were coming from). 1. First, this kind of people are few. They are the intellectual/spiritual type who often get kicks out of making relative deprivation a virtue (in reality they have no choice if they want to keep doing what they do). That gets me to the second point. 2. This type of people love that specific occupation so much that they are willing to accept the relative poverty that comes with it (often grudgingly!!!). HOWEVER if one of these painters, philosophers etc happens to get recognition and the money that comes with it ...well you know what follows. I am yet to find one that would act all "Mother Teresa-ish" about it and just refuse the money. The number of people who belong to this unusual category you made reference to is so small that it doesn't even count, in my book. But what do you make of people like Packratt who don't care for poverty that much yet they are kept into it by the realities of an exploitive "free market"? THAT'S what I want to know. Yeah...some people's poverty is a result of their decision (wanting to keep doing something that pays c*** but they adore doing). But MOST people's poverty is NOT a result of their own choices. And that's what matters to me. No "rational choice" thinker would be able to convince me otherwise - even if they spent 4 lifetimes theorizing on the issue. COMPETITION BRINGS THE BEST IN PRODUCTS AND THE WORST IN RELATIONSHIPS.

Feb 17, 2004, 06:00 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Thanks syracusa for presenting my agrument in a different term, but it's still the same argument and concession that I've repeatedly made to LB. 1. there are some people who choose to live in relative poverty due to their belief system, (mother theresa or a primitivist for example). 2. there are some people who live in poverty not because of direct choice. (I want to be poor so I'll be an artist) but are in poverty because they had faith in their skills and that did not yet come to fruition (I thought I could make it as an artist but it's not working out yet). 3. There are some people who live in poverty because of things beyond their control even though that person might insist it is their choice. (the mentally ill homeless person) 4. There are also people who choose something that leaves them impoverished as a secondary effect from the act of choosing that thing. (the drug addict, the gambling addict), but this one is debateable because it depends on the ammount of control that person has over themselves, sometimes such addictions are a manifestation of mental disorders, so it's an 'choice' by some individuals, and a non-free will choice by others. The psuedo-free marketeers insist there is a fifth catagory, that encompasses ALL people who live in poverty. That they all chose that lifestyle so there should be no compassion, no charity, and that this gives them the moral right to profit off their misery and put more people into that standard of living. Of course, I have been assuming that LB believes in supposition #5 because while he repetitively insists we accept his opinion, he has yet to consider our opinion that no rational person directly accepts the burdens of poverty except in relatively rare cases. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 17, 2004, 06:54 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The number of people who belong to this unusual category you made reference to is so small that it doesn't even count, in my book. But what do you make of people like Packratt who don't care for poverty that much yet they are kept into it by the realities of an exploitive "free market"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Can you offer some sort of explanation of "realities?" There is no meaningful plural of the word "reality". Dismissing those clear examples which stand directly in opposition to unfounded beliefs, does not in fact strengthen those beliefs with regard to truth. BTW nothing is gained by blind ideology such as is exemplified in the false and quite frankly absurd description of the free market (which exists no where currently anyway) as "exploitive." The assumption/conclusions were made that ALL individuals who live in the still undefined "poverty" are FORCED to remain in INVOLINTARY situations. Yet no matter the number of counter-examples I have offered, these assumptions are simply repeated. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 2. This type of people love that specific occupation so much that they are willing to accept the relative poverty that comes with it (often grudgingly!!!). HOWEVER if one of these painters, philosophers etc happens to get recognition and the money that comes with it ...well you know what follows. I am yet to find one that would act all "Mother Teresa-ish" about it and just refuse the money. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And you also have yet to find one to which this windfall has come. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But what do you make of people like Packratt who don't care for poverty that much yet they are kept into it by the realities of an exploitive "free market"? THAT'S what I want to know. Yeah...some people's poverty is a result of their decision (wanting to keep doing something that pays c*** but they adore doing). But MOST people's poverty is NOT a result of their own choices. And that's what matters to me. No "rational choice" thinker would be able to convince me otherwise - even if they spent 4 lifetimes theorizing on the issue.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First Packratt has yet to offer any sort of meaningful definition such that we can actually verify that ANY such people exist. Until we have an idea of whom we are speaking, we cannot meaninfully comment on their nature. Upon what do you base this assumption that most people in poverty (and how are you using the word?) are not there as a result of their choices? And why is it that you will not allow reality to change your mind, but instead stipulate that you will simply hold onto the belief regardless of the truth of that belief? I have yet to offer any theorizing though I have a great deal of personal experience and examples which can be offered.

Feb 17, 2004, 06:59 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Of course, I have been assuming that LB believes in supposition #5 because while he repetitively insists we accept his opinion, he has yet to consider our opinion that no rational person directly accepts the burdens of poverty except in relatively rare cases.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is completely dishonest. I have not blindly accepted your proclamations in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence, but this does not qualify for not considering your claims. How could I have refuted your claims had I not considered them? BTW given that this is the first instance in which you have dropped the universal claim, the claim here is more than a little disingenuous. I am glad that you now acknowledge that despite the repeated clarifications, you still assumed a position which was not my own, nor similar to my own. Perhaps now we can move forward discussing what each has actually said.

Feb 17, 2004, 07:17 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 667	Agreed Pacrat, especialy with your point #3. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by 3. There are some people who live in poverty because of things beyond their control even though that person might insist it is their choice. (the mentally ill homeless person) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I respect your opinions Pakrat. The title of this poll is "Are you poor?". Not: "Do you understand the true nature of poverty and do you fit that definition?" Not: "After we all decide by committee what we mean by poor do you qualify?" To me the question "Are you poor? asks how you see yourself, not how you compare to an arbitrary, or defined standard. (shrug) I could be wrong. Protester against the culture war!!!!