Reply With Quote
So you would agree in principle with a lot of the things that concern conservatives, even moderates, bellicosity aside.
You do acknowledge there is some fraud in the system?
you mean public assistance programs? sure
Do you agree that we should encourage those who can work to do so?
encouragement isn't enough. nearly everybody wants to work, for a living wage, but 8M jobs were lost in 09, and living wage is not current minimum wage or, even double it.
Do you agree that we should try to minimize such fraud, yes?
of course, but all policing, security, enforcement has costs. Smart people know how to weight cost of anti-fraud vs saving from stopping it. eg, IRS knows that every $1 they spend on tax cheats returns way more than $1.
world tax authorities know increasing tax rate too much cause non-compliance which reduces the tax take.
public assistance fraud, the St Ronnie's Welfare Queen which is supposed to be rampant (it ain't), ain't nothing compared to the REAL FRAUD of the 1% and UCA
Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-tax-avoidance
So you would agree in principle with a lot of the things that concern conservatives, even moderates, bellicosity aside.
Okaaay.
...and all that means, in your own words, what?
We should hand books of French philosophy to poor people?
I am a lot less concerned with esoterics than pragmatic solutions to real world problems.
You're a (self-labeled) smart guy. Read it and figure it out. I'd be more than happy to answer specific questions, but I don't have the time or the patience to hold your hand for the entire thing.
Funny that someone who's so concerned about morals is so quick to disregard criticisms of those morals.
I'm not disregarding it, merely asking for a distilled version of what you think it means.
I am (self-labeled) smart enough to figure out what *I* think it means, but that will not get me to what you think it means, and how that relates to the subject at hand.
You do realize this is a critique of Western aid to what is commonly called developing countries, and isn't really all that applicable to the aid within the United States between its own citizens, yes?
On that particular subject, I would mildly agree with him, although I am hardly as cynical about peoples' motives. Cynicism is lazy thinking, in my opinion, and worse than useless, because it keeps people from seeing reality for what it is, and finding realistic solutions to problems identified by available evidence.
Personally I am less concerned about handing people in the developing world simple food handouts, than giving them the capacity to educate, and innovate in their own economies. At some point, I will be taking part in micro-lending and other programs.
I care little for feel-good handouts than for actually doing something. I want something that works, and that sticks.
It is a criticism, but not of me or what I tend to believe. Even so, the failure of its line of reasoning is that very cynicism. I would reject a good part of it for that reason, and would be happy to expand on that, if you wish.
(edit)
That is what I think it means. I will wait for you to tell me what it means and how it is applicable to the topic at hand, specifically welfare and en lement spending within the US.
Disagree. I think what you've identified is a (rather small) component, but not the overall point. The overall point is how those in privileged positions consume the plight of those afflicted by disaster, poverty, war, etc... The concept is commonly called disaster pornography: there's a sense of satisfaction associated with consuming images of people afflicted with pain; essentially, we get off on other people's suffering. Representations of that suffering is the mode in which consumption takes place.
This is really an indictment of (the way in which) you presented all those pictures up thread: its an indictment of the sanctimonious moralization of how great we are in helping out the poor downtrodden masses represented in those images.
Not relevant. See above
Not relevant. See above.
I'm not so sure why what I think it means is all that important? In any event, I was a good sport and give you a clue.
See above.
I'm sorry but you're going on my ignore list since you don't wanna support 4th generation welfare queens.
You ing Nazi.
I all see is a lot of vacuous cynicism, with no data supporting it, or even quantifying the effects of anything claimed.
Worse than useless.
Frankly, if you can't put it into your own words, I'm not even sure you understand it.
Ok, even if I were to grant this as true, what use is this idea?
Real world problems, require real world solutions.
I would define starving human beings as a problem that requires someone with any sense of morality to take some small action.
sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/Submit
adjectivederogatory
1.
making a show of being morally superior to other people.
Hypocrite much?
I am not making a point that *I* am morally superior to other people.sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/Submit
adjectivederogatory
1.
making a show of being morally superior to other people.
I am making the point that *you* are morally inferior to other people.
Subtle difference, probably lost on you. You think of yourself as a moral person, no doubt, and will resolve the cognitive dissonance of being shown that you are immoral by holding up some useless philosophy as if that is the kind o thing that makes a s worth of difference in the real world that we find ourselves in.
Pretty bloody ironic for somoene who says that the study of economics is "useless" in everyday life.
You're still not getting it. The indictment is of the interplay between the images of suffering, poverty, catastrophe, etc. and a sanctimonious moral display of concern. It's a critique of the satisfaction people receive from consuming these images and feeling so much better than other people because of said concern. It's also an indictment of how those who consume such imagery actually desire the suffering, pain, horrors, etc. they consume to continue, else they would run out of disaster to consume.
You'll notice in all of this I've said images/representations/etc. The issue is how the use of such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering. Hence the example of the caviar/champagne before the photographs of suffering at the human rights foundation.
The reason this is all relevant is because of the tirade you went on and the use of pictures in that tirade. It was the use of those photographs along with the moral claim that you made that made me think of this blurb from JB. That's also why my calling them filth has no relevance to the issue here.
More importantly, just because you think it has no application to real world problems doesn't mean that it *in fact* has no application to real world problems. We're on a ing internet message board. We're not changing anything, hate to break it to you. This forum is a forum of the powerless. What we do here is discuss ideas and maybe learn something from time to time. The expectation that an idea has no applicability in the "real world" is stupid because nothing we do or say here has any applicability in the "real world." What we do have power to do here is discuss ideas and maybe change the way we think about things. Hence the indictment of how imagery of others suffering is consumed. It's an indictment of an idea (or really, a set of morals or the way those morals are used) and of a way of relating to the world.
Again, I've done a lot of 'splaining, and I'm not hearing much in terms of a substantive response.
You're righty there's no data behind this. It's philosophy not social science. Just because there are no numbers doesn't make it less true. Data isn't everything.
And again, even if I didn't know what it said at all, so what? It doesn't make it less applicable.
You got frothy with moral outrage and used those images to convey said frothiness. That's the trigger. Whether you think you are more or less moral than me is besides the point -- the point is how that imagery is deployed with a sense of moral outrage and how that covers a deeper desire for more of said suffering as a conduit for more moral outrage.
And for the record, I don't think of myself as a moral person at all. I don't think myself evil, but I do t bandy myself about as some model citizen or perfect individual. Intimating that I think myself moral is irrelevant and spot wrong.
And isn't it ironic that someone who decries nazism and fascism to start speaking of moral inferiority? I mean, not only are the words you're using convey the sense of moral superiority (ie, look I'm better than him) (and I acknowledge you disagree on this point but whatevs), but it's the same linguistic turn the nazis used to demonize the Jews, isn't it?
And where'd I say economics was useless?
Fair enough, you don't think of yourself as moral. Let's just subs ute then the word evil. You don't think of yourself as evil, even though you openly advocate actions that most would consider evil.
How do you reconcile that in your head?
You simply call my arguments "not relevant", the intellectual equivalent of clapping your hands over your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalala".
The cognitive dissonance is still there. "RG can't be right about me being evil, because i am not evil."
For the record, I don't hold myself up as some paragon of morality. I have my flaws as anybody does.
But I never wish death on people for imaginary moral flaws.
I fail to see where I've openly advocated for killing someone. I've pretty consistently said that I should t bear others financial load. If that has undesired consequences, so be it. But it's not accurate to portray me as some sociopathic serial murderer.
More to the point, why do you feel the need to personalize everything? I'm really not that interesting, or important, in the grand scheme of things. What I say think or do probably won't mean much when all is said and done. So why make this conversation about me?
You're deflecting a conversation about numerous other more interesting topics and turning it into a ing witch trial where you can boast about your moral superiority to others (see the pictures tirade ) while denigrating others.
Why do you do this? Are you incapable of discussing a social issue without making it personal? Are you seriously that insecure?
So ing what? "pornography" or not, the moral thing to do is to help people who need it. The label of the images means jack . Call them hats for all that matters. They simply relate conditions. It is data, no more no less, represented in visual format that humans find effective in communicating.
I was simply contrasting your ignorance and spite with data and normal human decency, and making a case that you are ignorant, and your viewpoints immoral. I will leave it to others to judge whether I was effective.
It isn't an indictment because you wave your hands and say it is. I reject that.
I noticed you haven't bothered trying to show that the poor are filth or people on the dole are all somehow deserving of death. You are right to abandon that, but don't expect me to not rub your nose in that vomit until you have the decency to admit it was ed up and hyperbolic.
Proof?
Please show that I have a desire fore more suffering.
I call bull , and ing resent the implication that I, even subconsciously desire more human misery. I do not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
