ClumsyMonkey.net

it's time for a survey!

please choose an option above and explain your reasoning.

thank you for your time.

Anyone can make money if they are motivated to do so. Anyone can goto school, anyone can learn (except mentally handicapped people), and anyone can goto college. Even if someone comes from a poor family they can goto college. The government will pay for it. Poverty is the result of laziness and apathy. The government gives out welfare and so some people choose to take handouts rather than go out and work for thier money.

I beleive that there are a large amount of people that are simply in bad situations in their lives. I find it hard to belive that every single person that is in poverty chose (through thier actions) to be in that situation. Things such as an illness, poor mental health, and just bad situations all lead to that.

Lets say an 16 year old girl got pregnant. She gets married, and must depend on her older husband for money, because she is so young, and has a baby to take care of, she has not enough education. Then, a couple years and kids later, he leaves her, with no job and barely enough money to feed her kids. She decides to go back to school, because she needs some more money to support her and her kids. But alas, in order to get that education, she would have to quit one of her several jobs, which she cant afford. That's just one example, and the way I see it. You don't have to agree, and considering who's already posted in this thread, you won't.

Many hard working people dont make enough money to put them above the poverty line. I foget the statistics, but something like at least 50% of kids living below the poverty line in Canada has a parent that works. It's too simpilistic to say they all are just lazy. Sure, some, in face, many could be. That doesn't give us (fine ME) the right to ignore the other ones.

*shrug* I'm gonna get my ass kicked in this debate, because all I have to back me up is my morals.

the cycle of poverty is very hard to break. i say it can be attributed to both causes in the poll. Not everyone can go to college because of the cost, and not everyone knows about federal grants and programs that will help pay for college. Government makes these grants public, but not public enough to lose money on the project. Capitalism is built on the backs of underpaid laborers, but its the best thing we have. The trouble with this of course is that whole towns and cities become labor camps, where once your out of high school, your going straight to the rigs or the fields to work. Hell, there are quite a few cases of kids finishing Junior High and going into fields and forgoing high school. And yes, this is going on today, I've seen it first hand. That is a poor choice that the parents have made for that child, but it's the state's policy that allows for them to make that choice. and the cycle continues with those children.

Every once and a while a smart kid comes through the ranks out in the field's schools and come senior year he has no clue what he's going to do. He's not aware that there are federal programs that will send him off to school, that a major college has been eyeing his grades and is gonna send him a scholarship. when time ticks by in a hurry like it usually does when your a senior in high school, you make poor choices. the kid will either push drugs around and make fast money and then go to jail where his life will only be worse, go to the Army and get paid slave wages that a recruiter flashes in front of his eyes(slave wages in a country boy's eyes is far more money then he's ever seen), or he's going to stay in the labor camp and blow his potential.

these are poor choices, but once again because the only world he knows is his labor camp, and labor camps are the result of capitalism. He doesn't see the good side of capitalism, the jobs that are abundant in the urban areas instead of the fields, the outstanding colleges and institutions that are in the major cities of the world. when all you see around you are fields and oil rigs, instead of buildings and schools, you really don't have a whole lot of chance to make it out.

THAT's what I meant! I agree with you whole-heartedly.

i didn't know you posted before me. good job.

Exactly Reno! I think there are some right minded people that have grown up with a comfortable life style and can't quite comprehend certain things. I'm not impying anything but i'm pretty sure at one point you said that your parents paid for your schooling Doug, and i'm not sure about Venom, but if that's so i would't really say your in a good position to talk about other people that had to work hard just to get enough money to go to not so great college

ya there's only a 5% chance of an individual being able to jump from one social class to another. Usually if you're born lower class, you'll die lower class, and so on.

For instance, being the middle-class kid I am, I have no fear of poverty. Even if I fucked up the rest of my life, and didn't get into college, or get a job, I could always depend on my parents/other middle-class friends. Someone who doesn't have those options has a much higher chance of poverty.

EDIT: This post sounds really harsh and pretenious but i'm too lazy to reword it. Please try to apply the lightest possible tone when reading this... i want this to be a "friendly" or at least polite discussion. Thanks.

thirdhour wrote:I beleive that there are a large amount of people that are simply in bad situations in their lives. I find it hard to belive that every single person that is in poverty chose (through thier actions) to be in that situation. Things such as an illness, poor mental health, and just bad situations all lead to that.

mental health or disease effect the wage earning ability of individuals. it's true that you can't control whether or not you get sick. however, you must be prepared for this type of thing to happen to you at some point in your life. It's folly to go into the work force thinking you'll never get sick or miss work.

Lets say an 16 year old girl got pregnant.

So she choose to have sex.

She gets married, and must depend on her older husband for money, because she is so young, and has a baby to take care of, she has not enough education.

She choose to get married. She choose to have the baby.

Then, a couple years and kids later, he leaves her, with no job and barely enough money to feed her kids.

She choose to have more kids with this man. She choose to become dependant on her husband.

She decides to go back to school, because she needs some more money to support her and her kids. But alas, in order to get that education, she would have to quit one of her several jobs, which she cant afford. That's just one example, and the way I see it. You don't have to agree, and considering who's already posted in this thread, you won't.

I believe my breakdown of the above indicates that her position is a result of her choices. It was not, as many people would have you believe, "one bad choice and two missed paycheques" that led her to her poverty, but a series of bad or short sighted decisions.

The problem with this girl in your example isn't just her decision making, it's a lack of moral character. She probably would have little or no self-esteem and be easily overpowered by her husband. The fact is, the person in your example likely simply does not have the tools any longer to succeed in society. She has no self-support system at all.

The cause of that is, to me at least, an unknown. I believe that all people have the skills to be productive and independent, but some people for whatever reason never fully use them and end up like our misunderstood 16 year old.

any hard working people dont make enough money to put them above the poverty line. I foget the statistics, but something like at least 50% of kids living below the poverty line in Canada has a parent that works. It's too simpilistic to say they all are just lazy. Sure, some, in face, many could be. That doesn't give us (fine ME) the right to ignore the other ones.

I'm not saying they're lazy. I'm saying their low paying jobs and inability to make ends meet are a product of poor choices. I know what I make, and it isn't a lot, but i have a new car and my own house. I attribute that to good decision making about what i spend my money on, and when i choose to spend it.

Of course, I disagree with your assertion that we have no right to ignore them. I think we do have a right to spend our money and our lives in the ways we choose, and that it is in fact the poor who have no right to make a claim to any part of our lives.

Alright Reno. I may have to tolerate your critcism of anarchy/liberty, but Capitalism is untouchable.

Bandelero wrote:the cycle of poverty is very hard to break. i say it can be attributed to both causes in the poll. Not everyone can go to college because of the cost, and not everyone knows about federal grants and programs that will help pay for college

there are affordable schools. and contrary to the myth, education is not neccessary to succeed in life. the general manager of west edmonton mall, the largest mall in the world, has no formal education and started out at WEM as a janitor. Now he's the boss.

Capitalism is built on the backs of underpaid laborers, but its the best thing we have.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Capitalism is built on the free market. We don't have a free market in north america. Capitalism is built on the simple laws of supply and demand and has nothing to do with paying your workers less then you "should". the economic system that adam smith founded never once mentions "by the way, make sure you pay your workers less money then the market dictates and keep the rest for yourself!"

exploitation of the "proletariat" is a myth made up by people who can't hack it.

wage is determined by the market. there's no real "minimum" wage.

Hell, there are quite a few cases of kids finishing Junior High and going into fields and forgoing high school. And yes, this is going on today, I've seen it first hand. That is a poor choice that the parents have made for that child, but it's the state's policy that allows for them to make that choice. and the cycle continues with those children.

Choices. All choices. there's no unavoidable circumstance that leads these people into poverty besides their own irrationality.

Clumsy boy, please don't insult me by saying that i'm a product of my environment. That is your opinion, and until you can prove it, don't use it in a rational debate. Again I submit the case of Ayn Rand, a woman raised in Russia when the whole country was communist. She left because she didn't like communism. If we're products of our enviroment, how did Rand come to be a capitalist in a soviet nation?

my princples are my own and have nothing to do with my familys success in life.

Ah yes an issue Doug and I are in full agreement on.

I think we make choices which can keep us from falling through the cracks, but I don't think we make choices which allow us to imporve our class. It takes a lot of luck to be able to improve social stature. You can work as hard as you want, and have all the smarts in the world, but if the timing isn't right it makes no difference.

c. poverty is caused in canada/america by two factors.
- poor choices/laziness/etc.
- the government.

minimum wage, taxation, price controls, living wage laws, economic regulation, stock market regulation and really, any other government policy which involves <i>money</i> all create unemployment and poverty.

I have chosen neither.

My family fell on hard times when I was in 5th grade because my parents divorced for about five years.
My dad went back to college to become a massage therapist, and now he has his own practice. He's a good man and he always paid his child support and we got to see him all the time.
At the time, my mom had really bad fibromyalgia (chronic pain) and was bed ridden for a period of time. Even after the condition receeded, the goverment wouldn't let her get a proper job on the grounds that she's "disabled." We lived off of her welfare, which she thankfully no longer needs now that our family is doing much, much better than before.

It was all circumstance beyond our control, but the goverment wouldn't even let my mom have a simple, low-impact job like secretary work or anything like that. It would have made things a lot easier on all of us.

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure that this fits in to the properly...

Quote:
Then, a couple years and kids later, he leaves her, with no job and barely enough money to feed her kids.


She choose to have more kids with this man. She choose to become dependant on her husband.

DOug, please, enough of this rubbish. This is not a choice.......the husband made this choice. Marriage is a partnership that requires promises and bonds for it to work. You seem to associate money as the only consideration for getting married, as raising children seem to not fit into your flawed level of moral judgement.

Just think for a second...........you are totally right..............she did make these choices under the pretences that he would stay and assist under the guidelines of their marriage. The husband broke the contract.

Now, while you are right on that initial level that she did make choices, you imply that these choices were directly linked to her financial fallout, thereby making it her fault. It wasn't her fault. It was her choice to marry but by no means her fault. your lack of sympathy for this woman suggests that you do not value her work as a parent, nor her goals of raising a family. SHe did not choose for him to leave, and even if she did, it may have been in the best interests of the children.

The issue here is that you use this arguement like it actually enhances your point. IT doesn't..............


I would give you some credit with this tunnel vision if it was actually a direct link showing the mother's knowledgeable decisions to neglect her financial well being..........but this is not the case.


Doug, could you please elaborate as to why you think this way.


You once told me that you would leave a child out in the cold to presumably die because you wouldn't break any laws (which in this case, was to break into an unhabited log cabin for shelter) Your reponse was stifling and neglectful. I guess I question your moral character a bit.............maybe if I knew you outside of your statement's I could see that. THis was in regard to "objectivism" before.

DOug, please, enough of this rubbish. This is not a choice.......the husband made this choice. Marriage is a partnership that requires promises and bonds for it to work. You seem to associate money as the only consideration for getting married, as raising children seem to not fit into your flawed level of moral judgement.

Just think for a second...........you are totally right..............she did make these choices under the pretences that he would stay and assist under the guidelines of their marriage. The husband broke the contract.

Now, while you are right on that initial level that she did make choices, you imply that these choices were directly linked to her financial fallout, thereby making it her fault. It wasn't her fault. It was her choice to marry but by no means her fault. your lack of sympathy for this woman suggests that you do not value her work as a parent, nor her goals of raising a family. SHe did not choose for him to leave, and even if she did, it may have been in the best interests of the children.

You're totally missing the FIRST choice that she made that started the downward spiral. SHE GOT PREGNANT. She had full control over that. If she hadn't CHOOSE to have sex and get pregnant at 16 then she probably wouldn't have CHOOSE to marry the father. Doug stated that she married him because she needed his support. Shw wouldn't have needed that support IF SHE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO GET PREGNANT!

It was all circumstance beyond our control, but the goverment wouldn't even let my mom have a simple, low-impact job like secretary work or anything like that. It would have made things a lot easier on all of us

right. they'd rather she live off of their teat. and yes, that is fully as sinister as it sounds.

ok, so if i was born into a family that was poor what bad choices did i make? did i not choose my parents wisely? i’m confused.

That's just the way the world is. If you're born into a poor family, odds are you will remain poor your entire life. It's possible to improve your life (meaning you won't necessarily be living in poverty) but you more than likely won't improve your social class.

The Other Matt wrote:DOug, please, enough of this rubbish. This is not a choice.......the husband made this choice. Marriage is a partnership that requires promises and bonds for it to work. You seem to associate money as the only consideration for getting married, as raising children seem to not fit into your flawed level of moral judgement.

No, the girl made the choice. She first made the choice to enter into a sexual relationship with an older man and have unprotected sex. She chose to have the baby over an abortion. She then chose to accept his marriage proposal and further chose to bear more children.

I don't know how you can argue that she didn't have a choice in every single step. It isn't like the husband used force to get her to marry him and have his children.

Just think for a second...........you are totally right..............she did make these choices under the pretences that he would stay and assist under the guidelines of their marriage. The husband broke the contract.

Yes, he did. The husband has no moral obligation to stay in the marriage one minute after his gain from it has ended. if he felt he had nothing left to gain from staying married then he has the right to choose whether or not he wishes to end the marriage.

That does not mean that our 16 year old was not a little short sighted when she made the choices that ultimately led her to depend fully on her husband.

Now, while you are right on that initial level that she did make choices, you imply that these choices were directly linked to her financial fallout, thereby making it her fault. It wasn't her fault. It was her choice to marry but by no means her fault. your lack of sympathy for this woman suggests that you do not value her work as a parent, nor her goals of raising a family. SHe did not choose for him to leave, and even if she did, it may have been in the best interests of the children.

She was responsible. There's no "fault" to be assesed here, only responsibility. The girl in the story is fully responsible for her situation. I do value her work as a part and apppreciate her goals, but the fact is that she made poor choices along the way to her goals which have now impeded her ability to achieve them.

Poor planning is at work here.

The issue here is that you use this arguement like it actually enhances your point. IT doesn't..............

I disagree. Let's do it step by step.

First, the 16 year old has to get pregnant. If the sex was consentual, and we are assuming that it was, then at some point either he or she made the offer for sex and that offer was accepted. Assume he asks her. He is making the choice to request sex, and by having sex with him she is both acknowledging that choice and making one of her own.

I know there could be several factors leading in to her decision, but the fact remains: she had a choice. weak character is not an excuse for poor choices.

Now she's pregnant. She now may make a choice on whether or not she is going to have the child, give it up for adoption, or abort it. She must make a choice in this matter, even if she never verbally or even conciously acknowledges it.

After the birth of the child, we have the marriage proposal. This one works like the sex offer; he asks and she accepts. Again I argue that her acceptance of his proposal is voluntary and that she chose to say yes even though she easily could have said no.

These are all her choices. The reasons she made them don't matter, the only thing that matters is that she made them. The product of her choices was a failed marriage, no workforce experience and no education.

If you believe that choice had nothing to do with this, and that circumstance is the real cause, argue your point as i have argued mine. take a position.

I would give you some credit with this tunnel vision if it was actually a direct link showing the mother's knowledgeable decisions to neglect her financial well being..........but this is not the case.

She never conciously makes a choice to become poor. Nobody would make that choice. I am saying that the product of many of her poor choices have led her into poverty.

Doug, could you please elaborate as to why you think this way.

because it's rational.

You once told me that you would leave a child out in the cold to presumably die because you wouldn't break any laws (which in this case, was to break into an unhabited log cabin for shelter) Your reponse was stifling and neglectful. I guess I question your moral character a bit.............maybe if I knew you outside of your statement's I could see that. THis was in regard to "objectivism" before.

Now hold on. I never said I wouldn't break laws. I live to break laws. I break as many as I can every day. Laws are the bane of my existence.

What I won't do is violate another man's property rights. I will not engage in the use of force to push my agenda (saving the baby) on somebody who is not involved (the owner of the cabin).

In this case, perhaps I could gain access to the mans cabin and offer to compensate him for the damage done. But I wouldn't just kick down his door and say "i was right to do so because this baby is cold!"

I'm not like the government you see. I don't believe in trampling the rights of men to push my beliefs forward.