Do you think we will always have poor people?

CallMeKate said:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” This famous line by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher reminds us that while government handouts may sound good, someone still has to foot the bill.
Click to expand...
Considering the more and more charities that ask for "only" $19 a month, those people they ask are going to have to set up their own fund raisers to be able to do all that giving.
 

Last edited:
It isn't hard to imagine mankind left on its own perpetuating a society in which poverty will continue to exist, just as it isn't hard to imagine mankind engaging in a third world nuclear war and mindlessly obliterating most of life on Earth.
 
Radrook said:
No challenges whatsoever? That would indeed be an extremely boring world. In fact, that kind of scenario was once used in a Twilight Zone episode to depict punishment via torment.
Click to expand...
Which episode, @Radrook? I'm a huge TZ fan and am coming up empty—perhaps because it's the end of the day.
 
KSav said:
Which episode, @Radrook? I'm a huge TZ fan and am coming up empty—perhaps because it's the end of the day.
Click to expand...
I will search and see if I can find it for you.

Here we go!

Unfortunately, they are not giving the full version except radio version only.

 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
I will search and see if I can find it for you.

Here we go!

Unfortunately, they are not giving the full version except radio version only.

Click to expand...
That's one of our (i.e., my and my kids') favorite episodes!

And it is a good example.

Thanks!
 
Olivia said:
How do you decide which ones to give to? It's really hard and sad.
Click to expand...
yep.. but as a country who fell into a recession at the end of last year, altho' out of the recession now but struggling, I feel that Charities asking for people to donate money is beyond the pale.

I donate on a regular basis.. but with goods to sell in charity shops. We have dozens of different charity shops , including the SA.. so every month when I donate I share the goods between 2 or 3 at a time
 
Last edited:
JBR said:
I feel what you say here is benevolent and insightful. The part about a need to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility and civic duty spotlights two important virtues... question being, can schools accomplish this, or should parents be responsible for that? Those personal qualities are often conspicuously in short supply in that segment of people I tried to describe in my post (#26).

Possibly in part due to widespread parenting issues in the 1970s and after, often the needed discussion, messaging, and role modeling may not have been there sufficiently to guide some young people toward doing well as adults. (Again, I don't believe this pattern applies to all poor North Americans.)

To switch focus slightly... it's the case that, in some parts of North America at least, technological change or boom & bust regional economies can result in unemployment, dislocations., and reduced income. These circumstances can taxingly stress moral fiber. And yeah, that's an old-fashioned term, but personal responsibility and civic duty depend on what used to be referred to as moral fiber.
Click to expand...
My primary and grade schools emphasized those virtues as well as kindness and tolerance. We learned mottoes like play and share, cooperate to win, and teamwork makes goodwork. In the late-60s, high schools, including mine, were not yet stressing the pursuit of higher education over skills, and still offered wood-shop, metals-shop, and auto-mechanics classes, home economics, and clerical skills.

I am sure I attended average American public schools.

It is unfortunate that the aims of public schools began a rapid change around the same time experimentation and recreational use of drugs did as well...when you saw a variety of so-called designer drugs, hybrid marijuana, stronger LSD, etc.

However, had schools not changed practically simultaneously - had they not taken emphasis off of acceptable civic behavior and the experience of community and cooperation, and off of labor skills, life skills, and teamwork, it's possible the newer drugs would not have caught on as well as they did.

And average American parents were not happy with the changes at their kids' schools, and neither were the students. But the Department of Education pushed for new policies, and insisted local school boards adopt them, threatening them with cuts in funding.

This coincided with the emergence of a federally subsidized financial institution specializing in college loans. So, no accident, I think.
 
Radrook said:
Venezuela went from a democracy to a dictatorship. No communism is mentioned.

Venezuela went from Democracy to Dicatorship
How Venezuela went from a rich democracy to a dictatorship on the brink of collapse
Click to expand...
Venezuela's former president Nicolas Maduro was a member of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

Socialism is kind of the child of communism; they are related but have slightly different economic systems. True or pure socialist economics typically relies on state-ownership of most (or certain) means of production, allows some people to own property, and usually has an upper class. True communist economics relies on state-ownership of all means of production, no privately owned property, and a classless society. Both market themselves as the worker's party or labor party.

Maduro broke Venezuela. The population suffered severely, rose up, protested, violence broke out, military got involved...it was a mess.
 
I can remember back in my primary school years, 1950's, when the Nuns used to give every child a small donation box which read, "Please Help
The Starving People in Africa". We had to return this box, hopefully full, within 2 weeks. My mother thought it was a bit much where 3 of us came home with the donation boxes. Needless to say, 2 went back empty and one had a minimum amount in it. My parents were struggling enough on one wage coming in which supported a family of 5.
 
Talking about the poor:
Mr. Ed said:

Do you think we will always have poor people?​

Define poor. Many people do not have the resources or financial ability as well to-do people but that does not make them poor.
Click to expand...
Well, here is one dictionary defintion.

adjective​

, poor·er, poor·est.
  1. having little or no money, goods, or other means of support:
    She came from a poor family struggling to survive.
    Synonyms: straitened, necessitous, poverty-stricken, penniless, destitute, impoverished, indigent, needy
    Antonyms: wealthy, rich
  2. Law. dependent upon charity or public support.
  3. (of a country, institution, etc.) meagerly supplied or endowed with resources or funds.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree, sometimes ‘poor’ is as much an attitude as it is a lack of money.
Click to expand...
But the qualification of "sometimes" leaves the uncertainty concerning what we are supposed to be referring to intact. In short, in order to discuss the matter from the same viewpoint and avoid equivocation we would have to agree on a definition. That's why Plato and Socrates insisted on an agreed definition before engaging in any debate.

 
Radrook said:
But the qualification of "sometimes" leaves the uncertainty concerning what we are supposed to be referring to intact. In short, in order to discuss the matter from the same viewpoint and avoid equivocation we would have to agree on a definition. That's why Plato and Socrates insisted on an agreed definition before engaging in any debate.

Click to expand...
I’m content to express my opinion without engaging in a debate. 😉🤭😂
 
Radrook said:
But the qualification of "sometimes" leaves the uncertainty concerning what we are supposed to be referring to intact. In short, in order to discuss the matter from the same viewpoint and avoid equivocation we would have to agree on a definition. That's why Plato and Socrates insisted on an agreed definition before engaging in any debate.

Click to expand...
These days, most "debates" consist of arguing about facts.
 
There is plausible evidence that poverty is directly related to IQ, and that IQ is genetic. If science gifts us with a reliably high IQ population, then poverty may eventually be eliminated.
 
Nature and/or humans always have 'the poor' through out time. Survival of the fittest or those who play the game aggressively there will always be some poor.

You see it nature. Watch the Discovery channel on wild animals there are those that never get the full spoils of a hunt and are left with scraps. There will always be haves and have nots. Capitalism is just another form of hunting in this case the hunt for money. In dictatorships it's a hunt for power. Same for the gangster life.
 
Last edited:
HermitHogan said:
These days, most "debates" consist of arguing about facts.
Click to expand...
The need to avoid equivocation remains relevant regardless of the subject-matter under discussion. Also, your major premise is flawed since both these philosophers discussed and debated many very relevant factl issues. One of my favorites is his suggestions concerning the ideal society referred to as Plato's Republic.
 
Last edited:
ElCastor said:
There is plausible evidence that poverty is directly related to IQ, and that IQ is genetic. If science gifts us with a reliably high IQ population, then poverty may eventually be eliminated.
Click to expand...
The environment in which a person grows up, including education, nutrition, socio-economic status, and exposure to learning opportunities, also has a significant impact on IQ. The fact that you can practice taking I.Q. tests to improve your score is evidence that it is more than just genetic.

Also, growing up in a stressful environment, such as in an abusive home or in a high crime rate neighborhood can affect your intelligence and emotional state.

Stress increases cortisol levels in the bloodstream. High levels of cortisol can affect neurological development — in particular, it can stunt the growth of the hippocampus, which is where memories are stored. It's also responsible for learning and cognition. Prefrontal cortex development is also stunted, which affects concentration, impulse control, and concentration. And the amygdala growth is accelerated. The amygdala is the emotional center of the brain. People with larger than average amygdalae are prone to emotional issues, anxiety, and depression.

I think that's accurate. I read about childhood develop a while back when I was trying to figure out some things in my life. If I made any mistakes, somebody please correct me. :)
 
While i feel childhood and all that entails can have some effect,
I have seen more overcome bad upbringings and how would we explain siblings that grew up same way but have total different outcomes.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top