CDZ Charity Begins at Home

[jwoodie]

and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.

In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.

 

[BULLDOG]

So much wrong with your thesis, so I'll just touch on the first part and leave the rest for others. We very much depended on other countries for our freedom. If it wasn't for France giving us guns, basic supplies, and military support that was well beyond what we were able to produce, we would not have our own country today. Excessive taxes that we had to pay to England on out trade with other countries is probably the biggest reason for the revolution to start with. You really should research your threads, or at least ask a junior high kid for some facts before posting instead of relying on what your gut tells you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So much wrong with your thesis, so I'll just touch on the first part and leave the rest for others. We very much depended on other countries for our freedom. If it wasn't for France giving us guns, basic supplies, and military support that was well beyond what we were able to produce, we would not have our own country today. Excessive taxes that we had to pay to England on out trade with other countries is probably the biggest reason for the revolution to start with. You really should research your threads, or at least ask a junior high kid for some facts before posting instead of relying on what your gut tells you.

I think we've paid France back and then some

 

[BULLDOG]

So much wrong with your thesis, so I'll just touch on the first part and leave the rest for others. We very much depended on other countries for our freedom. If it wasn't for France giving us guns, basic supplies, and military support that was well beyond what we were able to produce, we would not have our own country today. Excessive taxes that we had to pay to England on out trade with other countries is probably the biggest reason for the revolution to start with. You really should research your threads, or at least ask a junior high kid for some facts before posting instead of relying on what your gut tells you.

I think we've paid France back and then some

Of course we have, but that wasn't the point. The OP claimed we didn't need that help to start with.

 

[oldsoul]

So much wrong with your thesis, so I'll just touch on the first part and leave the rest for others. We very much depended on other countries for our freedom. If it wasn't for France giving us guns, basic supplies, and military support that was well beyond what we were able to produce, we would not have our own country today. Excessive taxes that we had to pay to England on out trade with other countries is probably the biggest reason for the revolution to start with. You really should research your threads, or at least ask a junior high kid for some facts before posting instead of relying on what your gut tells you.

I think we've paid France back and then some

Of course we have, but that wasn't the point. The OP claimed we didn't need that help to start with.

Wrong. He said ALMOST 200 years. Now pull out your calculator and follow along.
The year is 2016. Almost 200 years ago can be no more that 199 years. So, 2016-199=1817. Nearly 40 years AFTER the Revolutionary War. Did you follow that?

 

[320 Years of History]

and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.

In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.

I'll all for "teaching a man to fish," but I realize too that I am not willing to see him "starve," and that means I may need to "give him a fish or two" until he masters "fishing."

 

[oldsoul]

and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.

In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.

I'll all for "teaching a man to fish," but I realize too that I am not willing to see him "starve," and that means I may need to "give him a fish or two" until he masters "fishing."

No problem there, but where does it end? There must be a point at which he has to either pay for the fish you provide or catch them himself. Of course, as you are the one deciding to share your fish, you are the one to decide what the conditions are "he" must meet. There enlies my problem with the current "system". It's my "fish" but I have no say in who gets it, how many, or for how long. Yeah, I get to vote. So what? When the politician gets into office, they will do what they want anyway. The system will never be fixed, there are too many who depend on it, and I don't mean the people receiving the "fish".

 

[320 Years of History]

and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.

In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.

I'll all for "teaching a man to fish," but I realize too that I am not willing to see him "starve," and that means I may need to "give him a fish or two" until he masters "fishing."

No problem there, but where does it end? There must be a point at which he has to either pay for the fish you provide or catch them himself. Of course, as you are the one deciding to share your fish, you are the one to decide what the conditions are "he" must meet. There enlies my problem with the current "system". It's my "fish" but I have no say in who gets it, how many, or for how long. Yeah, I get to vote. So what? When the politician gets into office, they will do what they want anyway. The system will never be fixed, there are too many who depend on it, and I don't mean the people receiving the "fish".

I agree. There must be a point at which the mentorship ends. In most cases, the discipuli will end it on their own upon mastering "fishing." Occasionally, however, the magister must terminate that the tutelage and direct support. To me, the only ethically sound way to handle matters among folks who are societal peers is to define and agree upon the ground rules before entering into the relationship -- teacher/student, benefactor/beneficiary. Those guidelines need to include the terms of the relationship's end.

I'll offer one example. Consider Israel. At the moment, the U.S. is legally bound to indefinitely provide for and ensure Israel's qualitative military superiority over its adversaries as follows, according to Leon Panetta:

The United States will provide whatever support is necessary for Israel to maintain military superiority over any state or coalition of states, as well as non-state actors."​

The law requiring that has been in place, I think since 1986. (I'd have to look it up to be sure, 1986 or not, it's a law that's endured over multiple terms of Congress and Presidential administrations.)

Now I don't care why or whether one thinks we should or should not, in the abstract, provide that type of support to Israel, I have a problem with that support being infinite unless the law that mandates it is repealed. It's a bad law because it has no end and because it promises to deliver something the U.S. may not be able to do, even though right now, it can. More to the point I made earlier, it's a bad law because even the slightest hint of repealing it will come as a surprise to the people who are stakeholders in its provisions and consequences.

It'd be no different than your inviting a friend in need to stay with you. If you don't specify how long s/he can expect to receive your generosity in that regard, it's hardly fair to kick her/him to curb. Sure, the two of you can discuss the matter and agree on terms, but by the time you force that discussion, you've already reached the point of "having had enough" and they've likely planned around the open ended nature of the arrangement such that they plan to vacate, just not as soon as you'd like. I'm sure you see what I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[oldsoul]

and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.

In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.

I'll all for "teaching a man to fish," but I realize too that I am not willing to see him "starve," and that means I may need to "give him a fish or two" until he masters "fishing."

No problem there, but where does it end? There must be a point at which he has to either pay for the fish you provide or catch them himself. Of course, as you are the one deciding to share your fish, you are the one to decide what the conditions are "he" must meet. There enlies my problem with the current "system". It's my "fish" but I have no say in who gets it, how many, or for how long. Yeah, I get to vote. So what? When the politician gets into office, they will do what they want anyway. The system will never be fixed, there are too many who depend on it, and I don't mean the people receiving the "fish".

I agree. There must be a point at which the mentorship ends. In most cases, the discipuli will end it on their own upon mastering "fishing." Occasionally, however, the magister must terminate that the tutelage and direct support. To me, the only ethically sound way to handle matters among folks who are societal peers is to define and agree upon the ground rules before entering into the relationship -- teacher/student, benefactor/beneficiary. Those guidelines need to include the terms of the relationship's end.

I'll offer one example. Consider Israel. At the moment, the U.S. is legally bound to indefinitely provide for and ensure Israel's qualitative military superiority over its adversaries as follows, according to Leon Panetta:

The United States will provide whatever support is necessary for Israel to maintain military superiority over any state or coalition of states, as well as non-state actors."​

The law requiring that has been in place, I think since 1986. (I'd have to look it up to be sure, 1986 or not, it's a law that's endured over multiple terms of Congress and Presidential administrations.)

Now I don't care why or whether one thinks we should or should not, in the abstract, provide that type of support to Israel, I have a problem with that support being infinite unless the law that mandates it is repealed. It's a bad law because it has no end and because it promises to deliver something the U.S. may not be able to do, even though right now, it can. More to the point I made earlier, it's a bad law because even the slightest hint of repealing it will come as a surprise to the people who stakeholders in its provisions and consequences.

It'd be no different than your inviting a friend in need to stay with you. If you don't specify how long s/he can expect to receive your generosity in that regard, it's hardly fair to kick her/him to curb. Sure, the two of you can discuss the matter and agree on terms, but by the time you force that discussion, you've already reached the point of "having had enough" and they've likely planned around the open ended nature of the arrangement such that they plan to vacate, just not as soon as you'd like. I'm sure you see what I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

Well put. Why do you suppose there is very little, if any, of this in the current Welfare System( I include corporate welfare in that)? This is what I was trying to get at: It's all about power, not for the people recieving, but for the ones who wish to "give" your "fish" and mine.

 

[320 Years of History]

and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.

In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.

I'll all for "teaching a man to fish," but I realize too that I am not willing to see him "starve," and that means I may need to "give him a fish or two" until he masters "fishing."

No problem there, but where does it end? There must be a point at which he has to either pay for the fish you provide or catch them himself. Of course, as you are the one deciding to share your fish, you are the one to decide what the conditions are "he" must meet. There enlies my problem with the current "system". It's my "fish" but I have no say in who gets it, how many, or for how long. Yeah, I get to vote. So what? When the politician gets into office, they will do what they want anyway. The system will never be fixed, there are too many who depend on it, and I don't mean the people receiving the "fish".

I agree. There must be a point at which the mentorship ends. In most cases, the discipuli will end it on their own upon mastering "fishing." Occasionally, however, the magister must terminate that the tutelage and direct support. To me, the only ethically sound way to handle matters among folks who are societal peers is to define and agree upon the ground rules before entering into the relationship -- teacher/student, benefactor/beneficiary. Those guidelines need to include the terms of the relationship's end.

I'll offer one example. Consider Israel. At the moment, the U.S. is legally bound to indefinitely provide for and ensure Israel's qualitative military superiority over its adversaries as follows, according to Leon Panetta:

The United States will provide whatever support is necessary for Israel to maintain military superiority over any state or coalition of states, as well as non-state actors."​

The law requiring that has been in place, I think since 1986. (I'd have to look it up to be sure, 1986 or not, it's a law that's endured over multiple terms of Congress and Presidential administrations.)

Now I don't care why or whether one thinks we should or should not, in the abstract, provide that type of support to Israel, I have a problem with that support being infinite unless the law that mandates it is repealed. It's a bad law because it has no end and because it promises to deliver something the U.S. may not be able to do, even though right now, it can. More to the point I made earlier, it's a bad law because even the slightest hint of repealing it will come as a surprise to the people who stakeholders in its provisions and consequences.

It'd be no different than your inviting a friend in need to stay with you. If you don't specify how long s/he can expect to receive your generosity in that regard, it's hardly fair to kick her/him to curb. Sure, the two of you can discuss the matter and agree on terms, but by the time you force that discussion, you've already reached the point of "having had enough" and they've likely planned around the open ended nature of the arrangement such that they plan to vacate, just not as soon as you'd like. I'm sure you see what I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

Well put. Why do you suppose there is very little, if any, of this in the current Welfare System( I include corporate welfare in that)? This is what I was trying to get at: It's all about power, not for the people recieving, but for the ones who wish to "give" your "fish" and mine.

Red:
Well, oversimplifying things, I'd say it's because beneficiaries feel obligated to repay their benefactors.

• Elected officials want votes and individual welfare recipients have them to give.
• Elected officials want money and corporate welfare recipients have it to give.

It's the same reciprocal type of relationship. It's just that different things are the currency of exchange. I suspect that folks who think their vote is more important than, say, IBM's money, they'll feel one way and folks placing more value on money than on votes will feel the oppositely.

 

[oldsoul]

• Elected officials want votes and individual welfare recipients have them to give.

• Elected officials want money and corporate welfare recipients have it to give.

So, it is all of the above groups' best interest to keep things just as they are, and maybe even broaden it. Not the best way to run a country is it? Kinda corrupt if you ask me, trading votes for influence/money. They all do it too, not just one party or the other, the only difference is who's getting the money, and who is getting the influence/power.

 

[320 Years of History]

• Elected officials want votes and individual welfare recipients have them to give.

• Elected officials want money and corporate welfare recipients have it to give.

So, it is all of the above groups' best interest to keep things just as they are, and maybe even broaden it. Not the best way to run a country is it? Kinda corrupt if you ask me, trading votes for influence/money. They all do it too, not just one party or the other, the only difference is who's getting the money, and who is getting the influence/power.

Red:
I basically agree. That doesn't mean I think it pointless to strive for something more ideal than what we have in place now; however, I realize that achieving that more perfect state of being requires changing things that are "bigger" than is the design of the current welfare/political model we have in place.

As I see it, most folks -- folks on either side of the issue -- want systemwide and process change/improvement, but only to the extent it doesn't require them to change as well. Too, most folks look at the world and determine that there's something wrong with it, and in some cases they are correct, but rarely in taking that look do they ask if they themselve might be part of, contributors to, and perpetrators of the problems.

From all I've observed, the only way we'll significantly improve the way things be is to revise the paradigm under which we, as individuals, are willing to conduct our affairs, independently as well as in relation to others. In my mind that comes down to integrity, and, quite frankly, I don't see much of it in our culture. Indeed, it seems to be on the decline overall in comparison to how I saw the world, say, 40 years ago.

 

[jwoodie]

So much wrong with your thesis, so I'll just touch on the first part and leave the rest for others. We very much depended on other countries for our freedom. If it wasn't for France giving us guns, basic supplies, and military support that was well beyond what we were able to produce, we would not have our own country today. Excessive taxes that we had to pay to England on out trade with other countries is probably the biggest reason for the revolution to start with. You really should research your threads, or at least ask a junior high kid for some facts before posting instead of relying on what your gut tells you.

Get back to me when you reach high school.

 

[jwoodie]

I'll all for "teaching a man to fish," but I realize too that I am not willing to see him "starve," and that means I may need to "give him a fish or two" until he masters "fishing."

He will NEVER master fishing if you keep giving him "a fish or two" whenever he is hungry.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'll all for "teaching a man to fish," but I realize too that I am not willing to see him "starve," and that means I may need to "give him a fish or two" until he masters "fishing."

He will NEVER master fishing if you keep giving him "a fish or two" whenever he is hungry.

The mode of thinking you identify ignores that he may, for multiple reasons, desire more than "one or two fish." You're remark requires that mere subsistence will sate one, and it ignores aspirational desire/intent, which you surely are well acquainted. Those two emotions motivate folks throughout the societal spectrum.

Indeed, what else is the cry "the middle class need help" but a plea by folks who, among other things, aspire to rise above their current station? People like Anderson Cooper (a Vanderbilt heir) and Paris Hilton pursue careers and work despite having been born into enough lifelong income/wealth to live in comfort without doing so because they aspire to something other than mere comfort.

(I'd bother to provide links to scholarly information -- sociology, psychology -- that discuss the larger picture of motivation aspiration and accomplishment and discuss their findings show how my remarks above are accurate, but I know you won't read more than 500 words, so I have not.)

 

[Holos]

I think I might be guilty of giving things away and letting people know they can always have it like that.

Of course, as you can imagine, I have to eventually move myself away from those people I had so faithfully given whatever it was they were crying for or even harming themselves and others for.

(serious gritty gutters, be warned)

Now, I completely recognize my mistakes as you have so eloquently described, OP, but I still don't know how to effectively ammend for them.

What to do, for instance when the people you are "parenting" (teaching) are not really your children (and very strongly so in their own minds because of extended life long abuse from their biological parents NOT giving them anything and maybe even feeding them the dry hook with no bait or pond, instead of the fish?)

I have plenty of fish, you see. I am versed in fishing. I never lack and never will because I know exactly how to fish and can therefore teach anyone who is able and willing to pay attention to fish and fishing, but these people I have been dealing with, people that are indeed Americans but that not only cannot recognize it but also have a tendecy to despise America in all its diversity, they cannot believe in fish even with the fish feeding them. It's not simply an educational issue at this point, but it's the very picture of insanity. It's not even sickly insanity (except for myself becoming sick if I spend too long with these people trying to figure out the solution for them to get off the ditch). It's the kind of insanity where they believe so firmly in nothing at all or otherwise a looming, inevitable and awful fate that everything they do is at the end only an act with no relevant effects whatsoever. They use drugs believing it to help them, but the drugs have no effect (I am an experienced drug user, and I know exactly what a drug should be doing to a person - which is why I now avoid the heavy drugs these people are using, from alcohol to cigarrettes to MDMA and LSD - you can see the range - but they consume heavily and nothing really happens except by them feeling they are now righteously busy - it's like placebos for self worth that tend to run out with their placebo tolerance increasing accordingly, but they cannot recognize that also and then become self harming believing they are now the right kind of busy even with no self worth). Insanity!!! And I'm talking about A LOT of people, many who would never actually touch a ditch with their bare skins and would instead drive around the city with their cars or join at clubs and even at nice and clean house gatherings with expensive suits. My entire life I have been attempting to figure this out because I could not comprehend their abject neglect for the wonders America has provided for two entire centuries! It has nothing to do with racism or even any kind of segregation. These are widely diverse people with perhaps the only thing joining them as a group being the rough outlines of a human anatomy. Skin, muscles, bones, clothing and accessories, all these change from one to another, and evem drastically, but all of them have those features in their own unique individual ways.

They can't tell the difference between fresh and rotten fish and no matter what they are given their behavior does not change, and also very little of their "rough outlines of human anatomy" changes too. It's like they are all plastered and unaware of the life they are. I see myself change in the mirror, they all tell me I have changed from last seeing them, and are always surprised when they see me again, hardly recognizing it is me, but I see no change in them, except perhaps for some topical skin obtrusions, a bigger or smaller bone or muscle, a longer or shorter hair, or a more expensive or cheaper outfit, or a different companion. Often I meet eye with eye with these people I know on the street and if I didn't stop them and ask how they are doing they wouldn't really recognize me or know that I was there at all! They are very forgetful and seem to already be living in partial deluded oblivion. They cannot enjoy the streets, but they use them for getting from one place to another. They cannot enjoy the weather, or the climate, or any part of nature for what it actually is, but they secretely trust it under their automatic protective disgust to get their placebos again, even if these aren't tiny pieces of fabrication such as drugs but entire buildings made of concrete, wood, bricks, whatever it may be that assists them in feeling some sort of relief for that absolute nothing and the looming, inevitable awful fate they so firmly believe in.

I don't think they have put themselves in this situation. I don't think anyone would. The cause of all that may not be very important for discussion anymore, but perhaps to know the true cause might elucidate the matter further, although I think at this time it is already excessively stark and needs no more emphasis.

All I would like to know is if perhaps anyone in this thread would have an idea as to teach these people to fish. I don't think they can destroy America or anything of the sort, I just know they can destroy themselves and that really bothers me because I have not been able to really help, even as I have also given my self and the entire earth with all the instructions and examples for fishing. I know there must still be some effective teaching to make charity consistently worthy and valuable. Would anyone like to throw the bait on this one? Maybe a bait won't do it, but the right place and a net?

I feel ashamed for having continuously failed after so many years, but I don't feel guilty.

 

[jwoodie]

I think I might be guilty of giving things away and letting people know they can always have it like that.

Of course, as you can imagine, I have to eventually move myself away from those people I had so faithfully given whatever it was they were crying for or even harming themselves and others for.

(serious gritty gutters, be warned)

Now, I completely recognize my mistakes as you have so eloquently described, OP, but I still don't know how to effectively ammend for them.

What to do, for instance when the people you are "parenting" (teaching) are not really your children (and very strongly so in their own minds because of extended life long abuse from their biological parents NOT giving them anything and maybe even feeding them the dry hook with no bait or pond, instead of the fish?)

I have plenty of fish, you see. I am versed in fishing. I never lack and never will because I know exactly how to fish and can therefore teach anyone who is able and willing to pay attention to fish and fishing, but these people I have been dealing with, people that are indeed Americans but that not only cannot recognize it but also have a tendecy to despise America in all its diversity, they cannot believe in fish even with the fish feeding them. It's not simply an educational issue at this point, but it's the very picture of insanity. It's not even sickly insanity (except for myself becoming sick if I spend too long with these people trying to figure out the solution for them to get off the ditch). It's the kind of insanity where they believe so firmly in nothing at all or otherwise a looming, inevitable and awful fate that everything they do is at the end only an act with no relevant effects whatsoever. They use drugs believing it to help them, but the drugs have no effect (I am an experienced drug user, and I know exactly what a drug should be doing to a person - which is why I now avoid the heavy drugs these people are using, from alcohol to cigarrettes to MDMA and LSD - you can see the range - but they consume heavily and nothing really happens except by them feeling they are now righteously busy - it's like placebos for self worth that tend to run out with their placebo tolerance increasing accordingly, but they cannot recognize that also and then become self harming believing they are now the right kind of busy even with no self worth). Insanity!!! And I'm talking about A LOT of people, many who would never actually touch a ditch with their bare skins and would instead drive around the city with their cars or join at clubs and even at nice and clean house gatherings with expensive suits. My entire life I have been attempting to figure this out because I could not comprehend their abject neglect for the wonders America has provided for two entire centuries! It has nothing to do with racism or even any kind of segregation. These are widely diverse people with perhaps the only thing joining them as a group being the rough outlines of a human anatomy. Skin, muscles, bones, clothing and accessories, all these change from one to another, and evem drastically, but all of them have those features in their own unique individual ways.

They can't tell the difference between fresh and rotten fish and no matter what they are given their behavior does not change, and also very little of their "rough outlines of human anatomy" changes too. It's like they are all plastered and unaware of the life they are. I see myself change in the mirror, they all tell me I have changed from last seeing them, and are always surprised when they see me again, hardly recognizing it is me, but I see no change in them, except perhaps for some topical skin obtrusions, a bigger or smaller bone or muscle, a longer or shorter hair, or a more expensive or cheaper outfit, or a different companion. Often I meet eye with eye with these people I know on the street and if I didn't stop them and ask how they are doing they wouldn't really recognize me or know that I was there at all! They are very forgetful and seem to already be living in partial deluded oblivion. They cannot enjoy the streets, but they use them for getting from one place to another. They cannot enjoy the weather, or the climate, or any part of nature for what it actually is, but they secretely trust it under their automatic protective disgust to get their placebos again, even if these aren't tiny pieces of fabrication such as drugs but entire buildings made of concrete, wood, bricks, whatever it may be that assists them in feeling some sort of relief for that absolute nothing and the looming, inevitable awful fate they so firmly believe in.

I don't think they have put themselves in this situation. I don't think anyone would. The cause of all that may not be very important for discussion anymore, but perhaps to know the true cause might elucidate the matter further, although I think at this time it is already excessively stark and needs no more emphasis.

All I would like to know is if perhaps anyone in this thread would have an idea as to teach these people to fish. I don't think they can destroy America or anything of the sort, I just know they can destroy themselves and that really bothers me because I have not been able to really help, even as I have also given my self and the entire earth with all the instructions and examples for fishing. I know there must still be some effective teaching to make charity consistently worthy and valuable. Would anyone like to throw the bait on this one? Maybe a bait won't do it, but the right place and a net?

I feel ashamed for having continuously failed after so many years, but I don't feel guilty.

The biggest problem is when free fish become an entitlement. Eventually, you will run out of fish. The answer is to rely on private charity (except in mass disasters). Then when the same person shows up continually for free fish, he can be required to take a fishing class (or at least help clean them).

 

[320 Years of History]

The answer is to rely on private charity (except in mass disasters).

That may be your answer, but it is a heartless response. Mere observation shows us that the combined efforts of public and private charity is insufficient to the aim of ensuring universal "fishlessness" in the U .S., to say nothing of the world). I submit that you must either define a different objective or choose a different answer if ensuring nobody goes "fishless" be among the goals you deem worthy of achieving.

 

[jwoodie]

Better heartless than brainless.

 

[320 Years of History]

Better heartless than brainless.

False dichotomy/dilemma

That's definitely not a comparative value conclusion I'd make. The best choices are those informed by pathos, logos and ethos. Finding a way to incorporate the aims of all three is what is meant by "balanced thinking." Extremely rare are the real life circumstances where one is called to act as one must in a "trolley dilemma" wherein one is forced to choose one of the three as the basis for determining whom to save.