![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 85. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2005, at 16:05:17
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 28, 2005, at 9:18:56
> Surely you believe that I don't want people living in poverty any more than you do.
I know you are a kind hearted person Dinah, please don't think I'm questioning that.
> Or that Bill Gates (as an example of an exceptionally rich man) doesn't want to see people in poverty any more than you do, for that matter.
I think that Bill Gates... Probably has enough money to meet the basic needs (of healthcare, education, food, shelter) of every person in a small country for a number of years...
While still having enough to meet his basic needs, the needs of his family and friends, and still continuing his company and going on to make... More money.
Yet he chooses not to.
Why is that?
Why is that?Does he perhaps have some greater good in mind?
Does he perhaps... Not think about it...
?> I think that goals are more similar than you do, in almost all people.
I think that our biology...
Gives us an inheritance where life is lived in the face of a conflict between two opposing forces:
Competition and Co-operation
Darwinists... Evolutionary theorists have traditionally emphasised the role of competition.
Competition is what propells us foward...
(This is the backwards idea of 'survival of the fittest' which is a very different notion indeed from 'elimination of the unsuccessful'. Because the idea of the former... Tends to be associated with the idea that the BEST people, the SMARTEST people, the HARDEST WORKING people DESERVE to be better off than others. The latter tends to be associated with the idea that WE ARE ALL SUCCESSES BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HERE!!!)
> Even if you don't believe that people genuinely want to help the poor, poverty isn't in anyone's best interests as an issue. TWhen I suggested about the government raising the minimum wage (which surely isn't interfering anymore than the interfering that was involved to set the present minimum wage) you said...
(something along the lines of...)
But some companies can't afford to pay people more than the minimum wage...
Think back...
A while ago now...
To the slave owners in the southern statesBut our companies / farms / whatever can't afford to pay the workers at all...
Is that acceptable?
Aren't both merely instances of exploitation?
Don't companies have a moral responsibility to consider the welfare of their workers? The workers spend a great deal of their lives working hard for the companies. And who benefits? The workers struggle to make their basic needs... The middle class make enough from their stocks to say 'but we can't raise the minimum wage or we would be worse off!' And the rich... Are laughing their way to the bank.
But thats okay because they are SMARTER and HARDER WORKING and they DESERVE to be rich.
I don't think it is about people caring so much as it is about people not really thinking about it.
And when they do...
When they do think about how much of a difference they could make in someones life for not buying that magazine or TV or CD that they will hate a couple months down the track... When they really think about it...They are so horrified they repress the knowledge...
And they continue on their merry way.But the middle class...
I'm not really trying to generate guilt for the middle class...
So much as I am saying that if that same situation happens with respect to the wealthy...
Then it probably is the case that...
People don't really care.Because most of us...
Are social darwinists.
Survival of the fittest.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2005, at 16:59:10
In reply to Re: just one more... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2005, at 16:05:17
and it frightens me.
because of what it can lead to
acceptance of the status quo
justification of the status quobut to feel too guilty about the choices we make as individuals...
is ultimately unproductive
we simply HAVE to repress the knowledge of how many children die in third world countries every minute
we simply HAVE to repress the knowledge that that i-pod, that CD, that TV, that car, that therapy session could meet feed however many hungry children.
We simply HAVE to or we wouldn't be able to function
The guilt would paralyse us
We can't do it.But what that leads to...
Is the same thing happening at the level of the rich
The same thing happening where Bill Gates could meet the basic needs of a small country...
But does not think on it.
Or manages to rationalise some justification as to how the greater good actually requires him not to,
Manages to repress the knowledge that this is actually something that he could doAnd same with current administration
Rebuilding New Orleans
Minimum Wage
Welfare
EducationWhat do those things matter when compared to building the best nukes
Oil
Economic growth
building rockets to the moonSurvival of the fittest
Posted by Dinah on November 28, 2005, at 16:59:23
In reply to Re: just one more... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2005, at 16:05:17
I have nothing really to say. So I'll just bow out.
Posted by Damos on November 28, 2005, at 17:21:42
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2005, at 16:59:10
Sorry to butt in but I'd just like to recommend the film "The Girl in the Cafe", surprisingly it is about exactly the things you're talking about (a G7 summit) and one scene will stay with me forever it was so powerful. No horrific imagery, just the simple clicking of fingers. I've begun to question myself on so many levels and am stuggling to find answers that are acceptable to me.
Posted by AuntieMel on November 28, 2005, at 17:42:20
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2005, at 22:30:57
"And the owners of small businesses? Well, a lot of them are my heroes. Putting their entire wealth on the line on shaky prospects. Often earning less than their employees, when times are lean. I hesitate to think what raising the minimum wage substantially, and the resulting higher salary demands by people all up the pay scale, would mean to those people who are trying to make ends meet in the current business climate where increased insurance costs alone... Well, dont' get me started on that."
Thank you for that Dinah. My hubby is one of those "put it all on the line and make 1/3 of what he made before" start his own business types. We sunk what was, to us, a scarey amount into it and took a huge hit in monthly income.
It's working out ok, but we're not making it hand over fist either - and he still hasn't given himself a raise.
Posted by AuntieMel on November 28, 2005, at 18:00:28
In reply to Re: just one more... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2005, at 3:12:31
"> they want x% gross profit, x% net profit.
Hmm.
Profit vs welfare of employees.
Interesting..."It's both. Without profit there *are* no employees. Without a fair percent return on investment, stockholders will sell the stock and the company will go under, leaving many more unemployed.
Exxon announced "billions" in profit in the third quarter, and got reamed in the papers for it. But, it was still only about 12% return on investment, much smaller than many, many other companies - and the stock price went down.
----------------------------------
IMO... One hungry kid is one too many hungry kid. One sick kid is one too many sick kid. There are hungy and sick kids in the US and you can go on about 'economic growth' as much as you like, IMO something should be done about that.
> Kids get free lunches, and for the most part free breakfasts as well, if they need it, during the school year at least.
:-)
Thats good.
How about their parents?
How come they don't have enough money / food to feed their kids?
How do their parents eat?It's available to anyone under a certain income (not poverty level, higher than that) and it doesn't matter if the parents can afford to feed the kids or not. So, what about the parents? They can use that money for something else, that's what.
In one school my daughter went to, over half the kids were on free lunch.
And nobody *has* to beg for money and food. We really aren't so heartless, you know.
---------------------------------------------
"I think that Bill Gates... Probably has enough money to meet the basic needs (of healthcare, education, food, shelter) of every person in a small country for a number of years...
While still having enough to meet his basic needs, the needs of his family and friends, and still continuing his company and going on to make... More money.
Yet he chooses not to.
-----------
Bill Gates donates millions to charities, including (I think) the new international push to see all kids get vaccinations.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2005, at 18:24:08
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 28, 2005, at 18:00:28
> It's both. Without profit there *are* no employees. Without a fair percent return on investment, stockholders will sell the stock and the company will go under, leaving many more unemployed.
... And if we free the slaves, then won't they starve to death?
Do you think there is something wrong with this system?
> Exxon announced "billions" in profit in the third quarter, and got reamed in the papers for it. But, it was still only about 12% return on investment, much smaller than many, many other companies - and the stock price went down.
Where did the profits go?
Did the workers get christmas bonuses?
Lunch?
An adequate health insurance plan?
Good quality housing?> > Kids get free lunches, and for the most part free breakfasts as well, if they need it, during the school year at least.
> In one school my daughter went to, over half the kids were on free lunch.
And that is indeed better than having them go hungry.
I would imagine, however, that is is fairly demoralising to those children who are on free lunch.
> Bill Gates donates millions to charities, including (I think) the new international push to see all kids get vaccinations.
'Millions'.
How many billions, or is it trillions does he have?
To repeat:> "I think that Bill Gates... Probably has enough money to meet the basic needs (of healthcare, education, food, shelter) of every person in a small country for a number of years...
> While still having enough to meet his basic needs, the needs of his family and friends, and still continuing his company and going on to make... More money.
> Yet he chooses not to.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 2, 2005, at 9:10:08
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2005, at 18:24:08
"> In one school my daughter went to, over half the kids were on free lunch.
And that is indeed better than having them go hungry.
I would imagine, however, that is is fairly demoralising to those children who are on free lunch."
It shouldn't be too demoralizing. It's done in confidence. Only a statistic of percentage is public knowledge, not which kid.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2005, at 12:15:18
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by AuntieMel on November 28, 2005, at 17:42:20
Seriously, I mean it.
I got so hysterical the other day accidentally listening to Rush Limbaugh talk about New Orleans (I had tuned into the radio station that's been our lifeline and our hope as well) that I nearly threw up. One of the things he said was that if small businesses were going under in New Orleans, that it was because they weren't well enough run, and that better ones would come take their place.
I am seeing small businesses fail daily here. Assets under water for so long, no cash inflow, lots of expenses, exorbitant wages to get untrained workers because of the housing shortage. The old workers left, and haven't and can't return. Ours is a small business. Of our employees without blood ties to the owners, only half returned to the city. Homes destroyed, spousal jobs lost, schools closed.
But even in the best times, well... I know that most people see opening a small business as a path to freedom. But I sort of see it as admitting you'll be the only one who isn't guaranteed a pay check for the work you've done. There have been times when my bosses didn't get paid. But I and my fellow employees always did. The rewards can be great, but the risks are great. And they provide so many jobs for the economy.
I wish more could be done for them. It saddens me so to see one after another struggle for air before going under.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 0:45:16
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2005, at 12:15:18
Generalizations, assumptions, stereotypes..
It's not okay to generalize about the poor, or people on disability because you don't know their situation, and you don't know what they are up against.
Generalizations about people who have not labelled themselves by belief, or title, cannot be accurate, and they are often prejudice.
IT's no different when making generalizations about the RICH about Americans, about business owners, you cannot KNOW.. and why the H*ll is it the U.S businesses here being attacked?
What does small business have to do with U.S policy.
The only way this type of *argument* could have any credibility if every small business in every country every where was evaluated and then perhaps some sort of comparison could be made. Though I'd guess the amount of small business owners who mistreat employees and those who take advantage would come up pretty much even.
As would the amount of relatively rich people who don't use their money to better the lives of others.
Bill Gates works on the "Give a man a fish he eats for a day" principal.
He has funded eductation, made sure libraries have books, and all students have access to computers, he makes the money he donates continue to work
And another thing that completely galls me is that these sweeping generalizations are done under the guise of desiring fairness and equality.
And guess what? Sweeping GENERALIZATIONS aren't fair, and the people being criticized and stereotyped are not being treated as equals.I don't see any consistancy here at all.
All I see is something that seems far more personal than political.
Posted by verne on December 3, 2005, at 9:56:56
In reply to Re: just one more...thing I REALLY HATE, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 0:45:16
Your preaching is music to this choir member.
I agree completely. I'm so tired of apologizing for being American. I feel like an asterisked human.
Verne
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 12:36:12
In reply to Amen » Gabbix2, posted by verne on December 3, 2005, at 9:56:56
> Your preaching is music to this choir member.
>Thanks Verne
I'm Canadian, but it just galls me when people argue the "superiority" (and i'm not even going to get into that.. it's just a can of worms) of the way things work in their own country in such personal way--hey unless you've actually affected those policies it's nothing more than a roll of the dice where you happen to be living. It's circumstance not virtue that put you where you are.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 16:07:56
In reply to Re: just one more...thing I REALLY HATE, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 0:45:16
I'm confused.
If you are talking to me...
Then I'll need you to take particular bits out of my posts and tell me where your quarrel lies.
Because I'm not sure where this is coming from.> IT's no different when making generalizations about the RICH about Americans, about business owners, you cannot KNOW..
What generalisation is worrying you?
> and why the H*ll is it the U.S businesses here being attacked?
I never meant to 'attack' the businesses.
I was trying to talk about the laws / government policy that preserves the status quo of a radical inbalance in the distribution of wealth...
And where some of those people have the wealth that they have via business profits then business might just have a little something to do with it...> The only way this type of *argument* could have any credibility if every small business in every country every where was evaluated and then perhaps some sort of comparison could be made.
?
What type of argument?> Though I'd guess the amount of small business owners who mistreat employees and those who take advantage would come up pretty much even.
Oh.
Did you think I was having a rant on how small business owners mistreat their employees?
No, Gabbi. That was not a point that I was trying to make.
Minimum wage.
Does the business set the minimum wage or does the government?
I would have thought... The big business owners would be more likely to mistreat their employees.
But then... What do you mean by mistreatment?
Where is this coming from?> And another thing that completely galls me is that these sweeping generalizations are done under the guise of desiring fairness and equality.
What sweeping generalisations?
> I don't see any consistancy here at all.
> All I see is something that seems far more personal than political.I'm sorry that is what you see.
But I don't understand where this is coming from...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 16:10:00
In reply to Re: Amen » verne, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 12:36:12
> > Your preaching is music to this choir member.
> >
> it just galls me when people argue the "superiority" (and i'm not even going to get into that.. it's just a can of worms) of the way things work in their own country in such personal way--Is that what you think I'm doing?
I have problems with the way things are going in NZ...
But when I post about those nobody seems to want to talk about it really.> It's circumstance not virtue that put you where you are.
No sh*t.
I feel fairly insulted that you would think I don't appreciate that.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 16:11:51
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2005, at 12:15:18
You weren't talking about me - were you???
I started this thread from the bottom...
(I do that sometimes)And I thought people were talking to me...
Sorry
:-(
(If you weren't talking to me you can feel insulted if you want)
:-(
Sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 16:15:26
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2005, at 12:15:18
> if small businesses were going under in New Orleans, that it was because they weren't well enough run, and that better ones would come take their place.
hmm. does he mean the big businesses will branch out to take their place :-(
> I am seeing small businesses fail daily here. Assets under water for so long, no cash inflow, lots of expenses, exorbitant wages to get untrained workers because of the housing shortage. The old workers left, and haven't and can't return. Ours is a small business. Of our employees without blood ties to the owners, only half returned to the city. Homes destroyed, spousal jobs lost, schools closed.
yeah. must be hard depending on what kind of business it is too... i bet the 'market' will have changed a lot in New Orleans... With respect to what people want / need to spend money on right now...
> But even in the best times, well... I know that most people see opening a small business as a path to freedom.
Hmm. Work hard and you will be rewarded? Yeah. Hard work... And hope...
>But I sort of see it as admitting you'll be the only one who isn't guaranteed a pay check for the work you've done. There have been times when my bosses didn't get paid. But I and my fellow employees always did.
maybe that tends to be...
a small business ethic
(apologies if i am making a overgeneralisation / assumption)> I wish more could be done for them. It saddens me so to see one after another struggle for air before going under.
:-(
yeah.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 18:15:37
In reply to Re: Gabbi - READ THIS FIRST, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 16:11:51
Nope I wasn't talking about you there were things you've said that applied though.
I never use the word "you" or "people" as a way of getting around confronting someone directly, it's just not me.
And I was not even thinking about you when I said "It's circumstance, not virtue that put you where you are"
I was commenting on what I see as a prevailing hypocritical attitude toward the American people.
People who pride themselves on being "politically correct" seem to often make exceptions when it comes to Americans.
Generalizations about people aren't just wrong because they hurt people who are already down, they are wrong because they are innacurate and depersonalizing. That doesn't change because the person being stereotyped is seen as being in more comfortable position.
If someone isn't going to make a deragotory assumption about me because I'm on disability
I sure as hell don't want it to be because of my 'lowly' position. I want it to be because they are aware that they can't possibly know my circumstance. Otherwise it's just another prejudice.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 18:37:11
In reply to Re: Gabbi - READ THIS FIRST » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 18:15:37
> Nope I wasn't talking about you there were things you've said that applied though.
Like what things I've said?
> I was commenting on what I see as a prevailing hypocritical attitude toward the American people.
hypocritical?
> People who pride themselves on being "politically correct" seem to often make exceptions when it comes to Americans.
?
> Generalizations about people aren't just wrong because they hurt people who are already down, they are wrong because they are innacurate and depersonalizing.
not all generalisations are bad...
we wouldn't be able to learn anything new (that wasn't particular) without making generalisations...
i figure the sun will probably rise tomorrow
because it has done so in the past...
but when they are 'judgemental' or disregarding of relevant difference...
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 19:08:12
In reply to Re: Gabbi - READ THIS FIRST » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 18:37:11
> > Nope I wasn't talking about you there were things you've said that applied though.
>
> Like what things I've said?I think they've already been discussed at length.
and I suppose it's not fair, I don't want to go through the whole thread again and point them out because it will re start discussion, which I'm just not into.
One from a while back was was the joke you quoted though"The question on every Americans mind"
> > I was commenting on what I see as a prevailing hypocritical attitude toward the American people.
>
> hypocritical?
>Not you Alex, they were seperate statements I don't mean just on Babble either. And people who are American have expressed hurt about them.
There's not really a question there.
> > People who pride themselves on being "politically correct" seem to often make exceptions when it comes to Americans.
>
> ?They do, I have examples, but they are from my personal experience.. life. I don't want to recite them all.
>
> > Generalizations about people aren't just wrong because they hurt people who are already down, they are wrong because they are innacurate and depersonalizing.
>
> not all generalisations are bad...No, not all of anything is bad. .
> we wouldn't be able to learn anything new (that wasn't particular) without making generalisations...
> i figure the sun will probably rise tomorrow
> because it has done so in the past...I said generalizations about people..
and in my previous post I specified, people who haven't defined themselves by title or belief> but when they are 'judgemental' or
I personally don't care for a lot of them, even if they aren't negative judgements.
My problem with generalizations is that they are seldom accurate, they can't be when discussing individuals, the two are contradictory.
Of course when they are complimentary, or positive they are more acceptable, because they aren't intended to hurt, but I don't think that makes them any more accurate. I understand that they have to be used at times, it's impossible to point out every exception to every statement one makes.But I also really dislike ongoing discussions/arguments about politics/definitions/etc. .. I said how I felt, I stand by it, and it was not directed at you.
So I'm going to cut out now..
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 19:39:11
In reply to Re: Gabbi - READ THIS FIRST » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 19:08:12
> I don't want to go through the whole thread again and point them out because it will re start discussion, which I'm just not into.
> One from a while back was was the joke you quoted though
> "The question on every Americans mind"Ah, I see. Its okay. I think... I started from the wrong end of the thread and assumed (unfairly) that people were talking to me. But it was what that person said on the radio, eh? Sorry... I was a little bit touchy.
Yeah. I remember that one. And you know... If I still believed it was okaky to post that kind of thing... I could be being inconsistent. But I like to think... I've learned better about that. In part cause of talking to you Gabbi dear.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 19:57:20
In reply to Re: Gabbi - READ THIS FIRST » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 19:08:12
I came back to post to you and see you've already posted to me.
I had wanted to apologize for sounding terse.
It's not a personal thing, I only speak out when I feel really compelled to, when I'm really passionate about something, or angry.Aside from that, ongoing discussions of almost any sort physically drain me. I realize some people thrive on them, for me they are energy vampires, and that's where the terseness comes from (you'll notice a pattern)
It's just plain weariness, fighting the fact that my eyes are crossing.. not personal.
You know like one of those times you're in a really crowded shop and you can't find what you're looking for and you're worried cause you probably can't afford it anyway.. and you bump someone and you're just too dazed to apologize cause any extra word just seems toooooooo difficult to get out.
It's that kind of feeling. : )Or at least it made sense to me.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 20:38:45
In reply to Once Again.. » Gabbix2, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 19:57:20
Posted by verne on December 3, 2005, at 21:13:37
In reply to Once Again.. » Gabbix2, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 19:57:20
I like to present an idea, make a statement, or show off something I found rummaging around in my head, and then run for the hills.
I never liked debate. I look at other points of view the way I might look at a painting or sculpture. I can't "disagree" with what someone else sees or experiences.
Imagine if you said you liked chocolate chip ice cream and I said I disagreed? Whether the topic is the origin of the universe or the flavor of ice cream, it's all the same to me. In the end, there's nothing to disagree about.
When I do get into an "argument" I just keep presenting my view from as many angles as possible without much real discussion. I'm just not quick enough on my feet to fence with people.That's not to say, I won't listen to others and even change my mind. Sometimes I will even shift paradigms, or as I like to say, move to a new crawlspace.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 21:32:51
In reply to Me too » Gabbix2, posted by verne on December 3, 2005, at 21:13:37
yeah. i'm sorry guys.
i'm just used to doing that.
i guess i do it on autopiolet most of the time.
and when i'm tired...
is probably when i'm at my worst.
and when i'm particularly argumentative...
i think thats kind of my version of going for a run
it is a way for me to vent some of that energy.sometimes...
its something i kind of need to do.
well... maybe not 'need'
but it helps me.
but i really don't mean to hurt / annoy
other people along the way.i think....
just to ignore me if you are finding me hard to take.
sometimes i read posts i've written later...
and i don't know what to make of them myself.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 21:36:42
In reply to Me too » Gabbix2, posted by verne on December 3, 2005, at 21:13:37
> I like to present an idea, make a statement, or show off something I found rummaging around in my head, and then run for the hills.
>
> I never liked debate. I look at other points of view the way I might look at a painting or sculpture. I can't "disagree" with what someone else sees or experiences.
>
> Imagine if you said you liked chocolate chip ice cream and I said I disagreed? Whether the topic is the origin of the universe or the flavor of ice cream, it's all the same to me. In the end, there's nothing to disagree about.
>
> When I do get into an "argument" I just keep presenting my view from as many angles as possible without much real discussion. I'm just not quick enough on my feet to fence with people.
>
> That's not to say, I won't listen to others and even change my mind. Sometimes I will even shift paradigms, or as I like to say, move to a new crawlspace.hey.
well i hope... i never disrespect your experiences, your opinion, and / or your point of view. i like to argue about things... but thats because (for me) it is about pushing ones understanding a bit deeper (learning new things, relinquishing the false etc). But I *do* appreciate that not everybody is into that. and... if i tried to express myself and someone had a go at my logical distortions...grr.
thats happened often enough (not on the boards)
for me to know that i really don't cope with that very well at all.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.