• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What is the lowest point we are willing to accept in our society?

Louis Gossett Jr said:
The basic necessities for a non-criminal equivalent to a criminal should be the absolute lowest level we go. It seems most people (conservatives) have no problem with the industrial prison complex and spending billions of dollars to incarcerate people. This incarceration then includes shelter, food, healthcare. Then providing these same basic needs to someone that is a non-criminal is some horrible charity.
Click to expand...

The 13th Amendment explains why conservatives incentive criminal behavior to fill the prisons.
 
This thread is a good example of just how hard this conversation is to start. Getting a serious thought out answer from anyone is difficult. I've asked this to family, friends and acquaintances and very rarely received a serious answer or even had someone interested in the discussion ... but it's so important because it gets at the core of what we are trying to accomplish with any form of a social safety net.
 
vadimivich said:
I put a short version of this in the drug testing thread, but thought it's definitely worth having a real discussion about. The entire concept around safety nets, personal responsibility, social benefits, etc ... it has to be anchored in something: "What is the lowest point a fellow human in our society can reach that we accept?". Take the biggest fuck up possible, someone with no personal responsibility at all, someone who literally goes out of their way to harm their own advancement in every way possible. How far are we willing to let them fall? Do we let them live without a home? Do we let them starve? Do we let them die from easily treatable illnesses? What happens to the children they might have (through more bad choices of their own, which obviously the children have no say in)?

To some extent it's simple: there has to be a basic safety net that you cannot be failed out of (i.e - an absolute floor that is not "earned" in any way) OR you have to be ok with people in our modern society dying of malnutrition, exposure, etc. Not everyone will make good choices, it's simply not possible for that to be the case.

We need to agree as a society what that floor is, and we need to have a real discussion about it. This has to be something we agree on together, and there cannot be resentment that it exists (in fact, just making it a conversation will help with the resentment). It's something we should take pride in, as a mark of how advanced we are as a civilization.

Personally? I think everyone who is a non-criminal member of our society should have reliable access to a warm, safe, clean, covered place to sleep, running water, electricity, reliable food and access to necessary health care including sanitary products / basic self care items / birth control. Children should have access to education (K-12 minimum) including food and access to teachers / tutors / after hours activities if needed to make up for completely failed parents. These benefits should be non-revocable as long someone is not a criminal (and in fact are the same things a criminal would receive if they were jailed). And we have to accept that there are some in our society (a small %, but some) who are never going to aspire to anything more than this and are just "failures". We cannot pretend or be angry about that fact.
Click to expand...


Every day, people die of exposure and children go hungry. Commercials showing children in 3rd world countries with bloated tummies convince people to pledge $ to their cause, and yet our own government is putting forward budgets and legislation that cut welfare benefits to our own. America First!! ...but only if it's military spending, I guess. This administration and partisan politics in general are a joke. Anyway, I digress.
I walk past people on the street every day that make me consider this question, but then I get all kinds of twisted around in coming up with a response because I know there are services and shelters available that could help them... at that point, how much of a person's circumstance is choice? That said, I feel like even if they are 'choosing' that life, if the government was the institution providing the floor and insinuating that we, as a society, do not accept that life for our fellow humans there might be different results and a greater investment from everyone to lift their brothers up and see them succeed. Instead, there is a general willingness to assume that 'someone else' will take care of people and we can continue to turn a blind eye.
 
vadimivich said:
This thread is a good example of just how hard this conversation is to start. Getting a serious thought out answer from anyone is difficult. I've asked this to family, friends and acquaintances and very rarely received a serious answer or even had someone interested in the discussion ... but it's so important because it gets at the core of what we are trying to accomplish with any form of a social safety net.
Click to expand...

Because the truth for many of them is probably very uncomfortable.

Most people, and the religious especially, want to portray themselves as charitable. But for many (half of this country?) they would much rather have a couple extra dollars in tax cuts than provide help to those who need it.
 
vadimivich said:
This thread is a good example of just how hard this conversation is to start. Getting a serious thought out answer from anyone is difficult. I've asked this to family, friends and acquaintances and very rarely received a serious answer or even had someone interested in the discussion ... but it's so important because it gets at the core of what we are trying to accomplish with any form of a social safety net.
Click to expand...

The right wants little to safety net and no government in their Medicare.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Because the truth for many of them is probably very uncomfortable.

Most people, and the religious especially, want to portray themselves as charitable. But for many (half of this country?) they would much rather have a couple extra dollars in tax cuts than provide help to those who need it.
Click to expand...

Those people would rather select who they want to help and get a tax break for doing so rather than spend taxpayer money developing an infrastructure that can improve lives.
 
I feel like there's a big is/ought problem here. There is no depth we do not in fact tolerate, but we shouldn't tolerate​ any of it. Most of this country worships a God known to send the rich away empty and who fills the hungry with good things. Further, they are told to imitate God, as beloved children. And yet.
 
Our nation has a social safety net that makes it possible for our individual fishes and loaves to feed multitudes. Yet so-called Christians hate it.
 
There are plenty of conservatives doing a lot for poor folks in our society every day. I happen to disagree with their politics and the role our systems play in poverty, but let's not pretend that conservative Christians aren't contributing to easing the suffering or providing for their needs of their fellow Americans.

I think the big sticking point seems to be a criminalization of poverty. The poor are viewed as poor solely because of their own choices.

You are also correct that the prosperity gospel is bullshit that is hurting Christianity and hastening its pursuit of irrelevance.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
There are plenty of conservatives doing a lot for poor folks in our society every day. I happen to disagree with their politics and the role our systems play in poverty, but let's not pretend that conservative Christians aren't contributing to easing the suffering or providing for their needs of their fellow Americans.

I think the big sticking point seems to be a criminalization of poverty. The poor are viewed as poor solely because of their own choices.

You are also correct that the prosperity gospel is bullshit that is hurting Christianity and hastening its pursuit of irrelevance.
Click to expand...

That's not accurate. Do not conflate the cause of poverty with the most reliable ways out of it. A person can fall into poverty any number of ways, through their own choices, through circumstances not of their own making, and most often, a mix. Getting out of poverty in a sustainable way compels changes in behavior. That's not demonization, that's pragmatism and math.
 
jhmd2000 said:
That's not accurate. Do not conflate the cause of poverty with the most reliable ways out of it. A person can fall into poverty any number of ways, through their own choices, through circumstances not of their own making, and most often, a mix. Getting out of poverty in a sustainable way compels changes in behavior. That's not demonization, that's pragmatism and math.
Click to expand...

This post makes me want to take a shower.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
There are plenty of conservatives doing a lot for poor folks in our society every day. I happen to disagree with their politics and the role our systems play in poverty, but let's not pretend that conservative Christians aren't contributing to easing the suffering or providing for their needs of their fellow Americans.

I think the big sticking point seems to be a criminalization of poverty. The poor are viewed as poor solely because of their own choices.

You are also correct that the prosperity gospel is bullshit that is hurting Christianity and hastening its pursuit of irrelevance.
Click to expand...

You're referring to conservative Christians picking and choosing who they want to help with the benefit of tax breaks. I mentioned that above.
 
PhDeac said:
You're referring to conservative Christians picking and choosing who they want to help with the benefit of tax breaks. I mentioned that above.
Click to expand...

I truly believe there is plenty of benevolent Christian charity throughout the US. I also believe justice is more important that charity.
 
jhmd2000 said:
That's not accurate. Do not conflate the cause of poverty with the most reliable ways out of it. A person can fall into poverty any number of ways, through their own choices, through circumstances not of their own making, and most often, a mix. Getting out of poverty in a sustainable way compels changes in behavior. That's not demonization, that's pragmatism and math.
Click to expand...

jhmd, have you ever read about the science of scarcity? Those that are poor or hungry often struggle to make good decisions, and there are psychological explanations for this behavior. Here's a link on the subject http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/05/the-science-of-scarcity
 
Last edited:
Deacfreak07 said:
I truly believe there is plenty of benevolent Christian charity throughout the US. I also believe justice is more important that charity.
Click to expand...

You and I are saying the same thing.
 
It appears that none of us accept the posting of JHMD, so we are slightly above the absolute lowest point we can reach as a society.
 
Well what he wants doesn't exist so society as a whole rejects his shitty ideas and he gets to carve another L into his pale freckled skin.
 
jhmd2000 said:
That's not accurate. Do not conflate the cause of poverty with the most reliable ways out of it. A person can fall into poverty any number of ways, through their own choices, through circumstances not of their own making, and most often, a mix. Getting out of poverty in a sustainable way compels changes in behavior. That's not demonization, that's pragmatism and math.
Click to expand...

wtf is this post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top