Ethical(?) question.

[Bonzi]

people focused more on their own personal success, so much so that they HAVE no family, LEAVE their family, or severely LIMIT time with their family..........................

People are, more accurately, focused on THEMSELVES.
It's not really success as much as their EGO. or their BANK ACCOUNT.

And, those that are not obsessed with their jobs, won't work or are lazy because there is no job that is "fun" enough for them or "worthy" enough, so they become losers and slackers.

Very few family oriented, moral, steady working people in the world.

 

[Esmeralda]

Poor people have a lot of children because they are not educated. It behooves the goverment of that region of the world to provide these people with better education and opportunities to use that education. If you look around the world, countries with the highest education have the lowest level of childbirth. The countries with zero or near zero population growth are the countries with the highest levels of education. And this is not about birth control education, but education in general. To sit by and say "those stupid poor people" is to ignore the real problem. All people need to be well educated in order to reduce population growth around the world. Is it your problem even though you don't live in that particular small town? Yes. No man is an island.

Poor people have a lot of children because their women do not spend their best fertile years in school.

Poor people have children because sex is free and children mean benefits.

Bullshit

 

[Esmeralda]

This is a strawman question. I will give the reason for the question later on. First I want to see what the responses are.

So this is the fictional story that MIGHT be biography:

There is a small town on the outskirts of a large city in a populated country. In this small town, the residents are extremely poor. Some are doing ok, but it's a paycheck to paycheck situation. However, some of the people in that town continue to have children. Lots of children. They are the extremely poor folks and I guess since they don't or can't work, they might as well have sex without contraceptives and rely on the taxes and generosity of the other poor folks to support those children...pay for food, schooling, medical needs of those children since they can't do it themselves. And those poor people flat out don't understand why others in the bigger city or state or even another country don't seem to care about their plight of having so many children they themselves cannot take care of.

My question is...do you donate willingly to these people musing on why they are not getting enough help while doing nothing to help themselves while popping out more kids? Does it pull on your heartstrings to know these kids are in dire need of sustenance, water, etc?

It's not the children's fault. Children have no control over the habits, lifestyle, and behavior of irresponsible adults. Yes, it breaks my heart to see any child doing without, mistreated, abused, and living in a less than desirable environment. Regardless of what the parents do, we can't punish the children. Every child should have food, water, clothing, shelter, and proper health care.

Perhaps education as well?

Education alone will not solve the many social and economic problems facing this once great nation.

Look at other nations, ones that are highly educated. They have far, far fewer social and economic problems than countries where people are not highly educated. Figure it out.

 

[Sonny Clark]

This is a strawman question. I will give the reason for the question later on. First I want to see what the responses are.

So this is the fictional story that MIGHT be biography:

There is a small town on the outskirts of a large city in a populated country. In this small town, the residents are extremely poor. Some are doing ok, but it's a paycheck to paycheck situation. However, some of the people in that town continue to have children. Lots of children. They are the extremely poor folks and I guess since they don't or can't work, they might as well have sex without contraceptives and rely on the taxes and generosity of the other poor folks to support those children...pay for food, schooling, medical needs of those children since they can't do it themselves. And those poor people flat out don't understand why others in the bigger city or state or even another country don't seem to care about their plight of having so many children they themselves cannot take care of.

My question is...do you donate willingly to these people musing on why they are not getting enough help while doing nothing to help themselves while popping out more kids? Does it pull on your heartstrings to know these kids are in dire need of sustenance, water, etc?

It's not the children's fault. Children have no control over the habits, lifestyle, and behavior of irresponsible adults. Yes, it breaks my heart to see any child doing without, mistreated, abused, and living in a less than desirable environment. Regardless of what the parents do, we can't punish the children. Every child should have food, water, clothing, shelter, and proper health care.

Perhaps education as well?

Education alone will not solve the many social and economic problems facing this once great nation.

Look at other nations, ones that are highly educated. They have far, far fewer social and economic problems than countries where people are not highly educated. Figure it out.

Education alone will not solve our problems. We are NOT a nation of uneducated dummies. Most of the technology used around the world originated in this country.

 

[Correll]

I'm not a genius or anything, but I know there's something inherently wrong when we raised a generation full of people focused more on their own personal success, so much so that they HAVE no family, LEAVE their family, or severely LIMIT time with their family..........................

When that very success' inspiration, in the beginning of all of this, was FOR that family and NOT for the "machine" that re-described for society what it means to be successful.

I think a man living off the grid in the mountains raising a small family of 5 total people and surviving on their own is well more successful than a young business woman/man who moved their ass to NYC, became a shrewd business person and now oversees a Company of 3, 000 people and is never not working.

The real issues for the "Family" in our society tends NOT to be overachievers who do not have time for their families, but losers who impregnate women with no intentions of being there, not because they are off working so hard, but because they are NOT working and can not or will not fulfill their role as provider.

NOt to mention that when even when the Father stays to provide, that normally the Mother has to work too, and the children end up in daycare.

Is this the fault of capitalism, or the fault of government, or just a consumer based culture?

 

[Correll]

Lots of animals are territorial, and will fight to protect their territory.

Lots of animals have social organizations bigger than the family, that they will fight and/or die to protect.

Lots of animals can't do 2 plus 2 on a sheet of paper, also.

We either cherish life or we cherish SOME life based on our self prescribed constructs which are not our only way, or our best way, BECAUSE we have intelligence.

Sorry that was not clear to me.

It is natural and good that we care more for life that is closer to us.

I will fight and die for my family.

I would fight and risk my life for my nation.

For some guy on the other side of the planet that I never met, and have nothing in common with?

He has my best wishes.

In the sense that you should care more for your family than your nation, as the order you (rightly) just concocted, of importance:

I would say that a nation that goes from a community of people to an entity that oversees the capitalistic machine which is ruining the family nucleus.....

That the two ideas are in conflict with one another.

And im not talking about the left interfering with the markets or else "capitalism would be perfect," as a conservative might answer...

Butnthe idea of capitalism itself....where a chuld is inspired to work work work to go AWAY to a good school....and SUCCESS! is leaving your town to rise through the ranks of a Corporation by working 80 hours a week.....

Id suggest that person is broken and brainwashed. Working hard to feed the machine, toward an invisible success that in theory you'd share with the tight knit family....


But that family sees you 30minutes maybe in the evenings and the rest of them live back in small town USA where there was no ladder for your programmed idea of success.


Its nice to work hard and innovate as a species and all - but at some point you habe to wonder if this detachment from our humanity to feed our economy is right or wrong, despite all of the wonderful rhetoric about your blood, sweat and tears.

You present the most extreme case of a determined over achiever as though it is the norm.

Yes. As a society we should give more thought to family and personal quality of life instead of economic advancement.

This does not require a rejection of capitalism, which has generated vast wealth to the benefit of the world.

Capitalism has its plusses and minusses, and I don't deny the plusses while it seems you'd deny its minusses?

We should inherently seek a better system than capitalism based on its negatives alone, but not IN SPITE OF its successes, don't get me wrong.

But don't be a yes man because of those successes, ignore how bad the minusses are for us, and give up trying to intellectualize a BETTER system or way. That would be lazy.

What is the "Better" system you offer?

Something new? Or something old?

 

[Correll]

Human innovation didn't come from Capitalism, Capitalism was a mechanism that simply sped things up.

Human innovation LED to Capitalism, because if we weren't being innovative the idea would not have been born, or worked on, in the first place.

There are actual OTHER inspirations and incentives for human advancement.

But it's time to look at ourselves. If we can save millions in Africa who have no water and die simply because of where the hell they were born.....i.e. via "lottery," by not watering our Celebrities' golf courses but instead preserving that water towards a better means...................should we not?

Mind you, this is not welfare. Water is a natural resource of the planet. It is unnatural to first care for vanity before you care for literal life.....it's really depraved thinking.

That's not even CLOSE to saying don't enjoy your successes, either. Live lavishly. But it'd be pretty easy to live lavishly and have a brown golf course.

It's just the balance has been corrupted. I don't blame anyone. It's a happenstance.

It is welfare.

You want US to fix the problems of Africa, when we have no power over Africa.

So, we give hundreds of billions to African leaders, who piss the money away to little effect and then what?

 

[Correll]

Sorry that was not clear to me.

It is natural and good that we care more for life that is closer to us.

I will fight and die for my family.

I would fight and risk my life for my nation.

For some guy on the other side of the planet that I never met, and have nothing in common with?

He has my best wishes.

In the sense that you should care more for your family than your nation, as the order you (rightly) just concocted, of importance:

I would say that a nation that goes from a community of people to an entity that oversees the capitalistic machine which is ruining the family nucleus.....

That the two ideas are in conflict with one another.

And im not talking about the left interfering with the markets or else "capitalism would be perfect," as a conservative might answer...

Butnthe idea of capitalism itself....where a chuld is inspired to work work work to go AWAY to a good school....and SUCCESS! is leaving your town to rise through the ranks of a Corporation by working 80 hours a week.....

Id suggest that person is broken and brainwashed. Working hard to feed the machine, toward an invisible success that in theory you'd share with the tight knit family....


But that family sees you 30minutes maybe in the evenings and the rest of them live back in small town USA where there was no ladder for your programmed idea of success.


Its nice to work hard and innovate as a species and all - but at some point you habe to wonder if this detachment from our humanity to feed our economy is right or wrong, despite all of the wonderful rhetoric about your blood, sweat and tears.

You present the most extreme case of a determined over achiever as though it is the norm.

Yes. As a society we should give more thought to family and personal quality of life instead of economic advancement.

This does not require a rejection of capitalism, which has generated vast wealth to the benefit of the world.

Capitalism has its plusses and minusses, and I don't deny the plusses while it seems you'd deny its minusses?

We should inherently seek a better system than capitalism based on its negatives alone, but not IN SPITE OF its successes, don't get me wrong.

But don't be a yes man because of those successes, ignore how bad the minusses are for us, and give up trying to intellectualize a BETTER system or way. That would be lazy.

What is the "Better" system you offer?

Something new? Or something old?

I think it would take a lot more than little me man.

Like excel spreadsheets, hours on hours of data collection and research...etc.

I dont think that we SHOULDNT aim for the moon

Pretty vague there.

If you asked me what political or economic system I supported I would have no problem saying, Representative Republic with a well regulated Capitalistic Economy.

What system to you think is "Better" than capitalism?

 

[Correll]

Human innovation didn't come from Capitalism, Capitalism was a mechanism that simply sped things up.

Human innovation LED to Capitalism, because if we weren't being innovative the idea would not have been born, or worked on, in the first place.

There are actual OTHER inspirations and incentives for human advancement.

But it's time to look at ourselves. If we can save millions in Africa who have no water and die simply because of where the hell they were born.....i.e. via "lottery," by not watering our Celebrities' golf courses but instead preserving that water towards a better means...................should we not?

Mind you, this is not welfare. Water is a natural resource of the planet. It is unnatural to first care for vanity before you care for literal life.....it's really depraved thinking.

That's not even CLOSE to saying don't enjoy your successes, either. Live lavishly. But it'd be pretty easy to live lavishly and have a brown golf course.

It's just the balance has been corrupted. I don't blame anyone. It's a happenstance.

It is welfare.

You want US to fix the problems of Africa, when we have no power over Africa.

So, we give hundreds of billions to African leaders, who piss the money away to little effect and then what?

Giving them dollars is not what I had mentioned.

You invoked what I agree is welfare, but isnt what i said, and said "look its welfare."

So, how does the "not dollars" watering our Celebrities' golf courses" to be translated to "fixing" Africa's problems?

If not by taking from US and giving to them?

 

[Gracie]

Well alrighty then! I guess I better read the whole thread but wanted to tell you why I asked before I hit page 2.

I watched 20/20 last night. It was about Cecil the lion, trophy hunting, and the head scratching of zimbabwians that so many americans and people the world over are so upset over the death of a lion when they, the people, are starving, and their children are starving, they are dying of Aids and why doesn't anyone get up in arms over their plight instead of having such outrage over one lion.

I'll tell ya why, Zimbabwe. Stop having children you can't take care of and perhaps stop ******* without protection.

So in essence..it was 20/20's fault for me to tell my tv set the same thing I just said in the sentence above this one.

 

[Gracie]

And I feel exactly the same way when the Begging Channel shows pics of fly ridden little faces crying for food and water and being so skinny and the mother just as skinny but not thin enough or weak enough to stop the skinny father from bringing forth more skinny, sick, starving children.

In short...it pisses me off.

 

[Gracie]

Poor people have a lot of children because they are not educated. It behooves the goverment of that region of the world to provide these people with better education and opportunities to use that education. If you look around the world, countries with the highest education have the lowest level of childbirth. The countries with zero or near zero population growth are the countries with the highest levels of education. And this is not about birth control education, but education in general. To sit by and say "those stupid poor people" is to ignore the real problem. All people need to be well educated in order to reduce population growth around the world. Is it your problem even though you don't live in that particular small town? Yes. No man is an island.

Poor people have a lot of children because their women do not spend their best fertile years in school.

Poor people have children because sex is free and children mean benefits.

Not in zimbabwe. They don't get to sit on their ass and collect welfare. So..the question is, are they are ******* stupid to continue to ****, knowing a child will be the result and don't care?