Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And if you're handicapped, mentally impaired or challenged, if you can't be self-reliant, then what? You must die? You must be consigned to a terrible life without any support? What you're suggesting is a 'fittest survive' kind of world. That is not a world I would want to live in or be part of. If I can help my brother or sister in whatever way, I will help them. What was instilled in me from a very early age was that there are those less fortunate and you should never forget them. That helping and sharing what you have is far better than hoarding and being greedy.

Earn their bread is quite a quaint notion, and would have fitted maybe a society that existed in the late seventeen hundreds, but not anymore. We don't live in a society where that choice is always available. Hundred percent employment in a mass-produced age is impossible. Those who can't find work should starve, maybe? Well, they're not human after all are they? Not if they don't have a job.

Giving birth is a right of every animal and human being on this planet. It's not only a right, its a biological necessity. You would have children punished for the temerity to be born to irresponsible parents? You would see them starve and suffer when you have more than enough to give?

I'm making a guess here, but you're an Ayn Rand reader aren't you?

I read Ayn Rand as a young person and thought her books sucked then.

We aren't talking about the truly needy, are we? Thats just dumb and not worthy of replying to.

And no, giving birth is most certainly NOT the right of every human and animal on the planet. Look around. Where has THAT gotten us?

Again, its a responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of them, you shouldn't have them. Being wealthy or even well off isn't necessary.

You simply must have the capability to provide for their needs. Food, shelter, and education and health care.

Such a simple basic truth.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Human beings do not always deserve the term applied to them.

Charles Manson, women on crack/heroin, whatever drug you want to name, who birth babies, pedophiles, abusers of the elderly, none of these qualify as 'human beings' in my book.

My best friend died at 19 of a heroin overdose. She was one of the most wonderful and beautiful people in the entire world, but also troubled. She was more of a human being than many I've met since and I'm likely to meet.

And yes, the rest are human beings, no matter how sick and evil they are. You don't earn the categorisation, you're born with it, and with it certain rights. Human rights.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I read Ayn Rand as a young person and thought her books sucked then.

We aren't talking about the truly needy, are we? Thats just dumb and not worthy of replying to.

And no, giving birth is most certainly NOT the right of every human and animal on the planet. Look around. Where has THAT gotten us?

Again, its a responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of them, you shouldn't have them. Being wealthy or even well off isn't necessary.

You simply must have the capability to provide for their needs. Food, shelter, and education and health care.

Such a simple basic truth.

Your truth, but if your truth was actually how Europe was, I'd have emigrated a long time ago.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

My best friend died at 19 of a heroin overdose. She was one of the most wonderful and beautiful people in the entire world, but also troubled. She was more of a human being than many I've met since and I'm likely to meet.

And yes, the rest are human beings, no matter how sick and evil they are. You don't earn the categorisation, you're born with it, and with it certain rights. Human rights.

Well, to call them animals insults the animal world.

You lose those 'human rights' when you sink to the level these 'things' do. I'm sure you aren't saying the person who raped ON CAMERA the 2 year old while she screamed in fear and pain still deserves the term "human"

Drug addiction is a terrible thing. It destroys people and all who know them. Thats why there is so much anti-drug education from birth, and why people still choose to 'escape' that way is a mystery.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Well, to call them animals insults the animal world.

You lose those 'human rights' when you sink to the level these 'things' do. I'm sure you aren't saying the person who raped ON CAMERA the 2 year old while she screamed in fear and pain still deserves the term "human"

Drug addiction is a terrible thing. It destroys people and all who know them. Thats why there is so much anti-drug education from birth, and why people still choose to 'escape' that way is a mystery.

There's no choice in the matter, whether I deem them personally to be the vilest scum on earth, they are still human. If a dog mauls a child does it suddenly stop being a dog? Mallards routinely gang rape their own females, and also on one famously documented case, raped on of their own dead, but they're still mallards.

And no you don't lose those human rights even when you commit such a vile act as that you described. You may have them sanctioned, severly restricted when you're placed in a prison and in some countries they still execute people for these awful behaviours, but you're still allowed the basic human rights by law. To eat, to sleep, to have medical care.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And no you don't lose those human rights even when you commit such a vile act as that you described. You may have them sanctioned, severly restricted when you're placed in a prison and in some countries they still execute people for these awful behaviours, but you're still allowed the basic human rights by law. To eat, to sleep, to have medical care.

Does this not scream WRONG to you? Being "sanctioned, and severely restricted" is okay?

So, this is your world? "Behave however you wish, commit what ever foul act you desire, you are still human and worthy of the basic human rights."

I'm done here. I feel as violated and sickened by your outlook as you must feel by mine.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Does this not scream WRONG to you? Being "sanctioned, and severely restricted" is okay?

So, this is your world? "Behave however you wish, commit what ever foul act you desire, you are still human and worthy of the basic human rights."

I'm done here. I feel as violated and sickened by your outlook as you must feel by mine.

So what you're suggesting is we kill these people, am I getting that right? Because depriving them of food, sleep and medical care is killing them, there's no other word for it. I'd rather, and I think both our European laws and the majority of Europeans would agree, they be studied so that we can learn why they did these awful things. I'd rather we learned how to prevent these vile actions from happening again.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Giving birth is a right of every animal and human being on this planet. It's not only a right, its a biological necessity.

Interesting statement. Biologically impossible, but interesting. I had no idea that males had the right to "give birth."

And, I have never found it to be a biological necessity. Eating, sleeping, even going to the bathroom. Those I see as "biological necessities" ... but giving birth?? On what planet would that be a biological necessity?

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Switzerland has the highest suicide rate in Europe, AND the highest proportion of suicides using guns as the weapon. Do you not class suicide as murder?

Well, that's just wrong. There are several European countries that have a higher suicide rate than Switzerland. Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania all have much higher suicide rates (at least among males).

I realize you are trying to prove a point, but at least try to get your facts straight.

Oh, and just in case you are curious ... my statistics come from the United Nations, World Health Organization. Yours??

Really, people ... am I the only person who bothers to fact check Harry's posts??

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And if you're handicapped, mentally impaired or challenged, if you can't be self-reliant, then what? You must die? You must be consigned to a terrible life without any support? What you're suggesting is a 'fittest survive' kind of world. That is not a world I would want to live in or be part of. If I can help my brother or sister in whatever way, I will help them. What was instilled in me from a very early age was that there are those less fortunate and you should never forget them. That helping and sharing what you have is far better than hoarding and being greedy.

Earn their bread is quite a quaint notion, and would have fitted maybe a society that existed in the late seventeen hundreds, but not anymore. We don't live in a society where that choice is always available. Hundred percent employment in a mass-produced age is impossible. Those who can't find work should starve, maybe? Well, they're not human after all are they? Not if they don't have a job.

Giving birth is a right of every animal and human being on this planet. It's not only a right, its a biological necessity. You would have children punished for the temerity to be born to irresponsible parents? You would see them starve and suffer when you have more than enough to give?

I'm making a guess here, but you're an Ayn Rand reader aren't you?

Providing for someone who is handicapped is a far cry from providing for a perfectly able person who just doesn't care to work. And most handicapped people can work....at the company I work for there's a man with Down's Syndrome working in the cafeteria, bussing tables. There's a deaf woman in a wheelchair working in the claims department (I work for an insurance company). I think desertgrandma is referring to people who 'choose' not to work. Why should they be provided for by those who are willing and able to provide for themselves? The resources for their care have to come from somewhere....or someone.

I applaud you for wanting to help your brothers and sisters in the human race. We need more people who want to share. But when you take, by force (I'll be thrown in jail if I don't pay taxes...that's by force in my book), the resources that I work for to provide for my family, to give them to someone else who hasn't worked for them....that's not charity. That's not giving, it's not sharing. It's theft, plain and simple.

If people can't keep what they earn and improve their situation by means of their own efforts, the incentive to make those efforts is gone. The end result is less resources to go around, because no one cares to produce them.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

[SNIP a variety of stuff not what I intend to comment on]
Given that income disparity (between the richest, the rich and the poor) in the US is the largest in the world, [...]

Not so! Not even close!!! See this reference or this one (at Wikipedia), or any of a wide variety of others. Income disparity in the US is middle-of-the-pack, with some countries being moderately lower and others being drastically higher. And note the criticisms including (most notably) "For a large, economically diverse country, a much higher coefficient will be calculated for the country as a whole than will be calculated for each of its regions. [...] For this reason, the scores calculated for individual countries within the EU are difficult to compare with the score of the entire US: the overall value for the EU should be used in that case, 31.3[4], which is still much lower than the United States', 45.[5]"

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

[SNIP some more]
and the myth notwithstanding, fairly little by way of actual social mobility (due to the relatively high costs associated with getting a good education),

Social mobility is a funny thing to measure. For example, do you include an individual's movement over time? When I first started working and supporting myself (before finishing college), my income put me just above the poverty line. When I last had a job in industry, my household's income was in the top 20% (but not quite in the top 5%). Then I went back to school for a mid-career Ph.D. and my household's income dropped into the "second fifth" -- and stayed there for 10 years. Now that I'm a PostDoc we're back into the 4th fifth, and will return to the top 20% when I go back to industry. Is that social mobility or not? (All using the data found here at wikipedia, as converted via the Consumer Price Index because it's too late at night for me to look up historical quintiles.)

Alternatively, do you count by looking at generational changes? If so, you find that families move around between quintiles quite a lot over the generations. (No reference because it's getting late and I've done enough of your homework for you.) Those "relatively high costs associated with getting a good education" are part of the picture. But even just finishing high-school while making sure you actually learned something is enough to take your household into the middle fifth or even the fourth fifth. And that is a step that is well within the reach of any child who wishes to learn and whose family actually encourages them to do so. No college expenses required.

And I haven't even touched on the many ways of going to college that are available to motivated students. The Ivy League? If you can get yourself admitted, they'll find a way for you to attend no matter how bad your family's finances. Really! Lots of well-respected private schools do the same. Then there're state schools, community colleges, student loans, gov't grants, etc. When I hear someone say they "can't afford to go to college" I translate that as "I'm not willing to make financial sacrifices now to have a better life later." Because that's what it really boils down to.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I'd say fixing that would do more to lower crime rates than either giving everyone mandatory gun training or trying to outlaw them.
That said, this apparently goes against the whole "everyone has equal chance to make it, and if you don't make it it's your own fault" notion that is seemingly spoon-fed to everyone from birth, keeping people from supporting more equality of access to healthcare, schooling, etc., so it probably won't happen.
But it really isn't "socialism" to prefer creating or even paying for living conditions in which there is less reason for people to become disaffected with society as a whole..

Hmmmm... It is immediately obvious to the casual observer that not everybody has "an equal chance to make it." Some are born to wealth, others to poverty. Some are genius-level smart, others are handicapped. But there are plenty of factors that are clearly within the control of motivated individuals, should they choose to control them. Will you work at your schooling in order to learn? Or will you refuse to study because "it's boring" or "that's selling out to the man" (a popular line when I was in grade-school) or <fill-in-popular-excuse-here>? Will you encourage your children to read? Or park them in front of the TV?

Sure. Provide for the relatively few who truly cannot learn to take care of themselves. Work to provide realistic opportunity for a bootstrap up for those who are willing to try to make their lives better. Provide for those who cannot support themselves through no fault of their own.

Aside: If you are not a professional teacher, how many people have you taught to read? I haven't hit 10 yet, but I'll get there. Meanwhile, my wife has seen a dozen adult students from barely able to read all the way through their GED (high-school diploma equivalent, for non-US readers). All volunteer effort. And much more typical of the US than "fix it with a government program." See a problem? Don't like it? Get out there and DO something about it!

As for equality of access to healthcare, schooling, etc. I've been in plenty of the "hopeless inner city schools." They suck. But you can still learn there, if you want to. This doesn't mean they couldn't (or shouldn't) be improved, but that's a rant for another day. I note, however, that education outcomes are far more strongly influenced by family attitudes than by the outside world. (Finding the references is once again left as an exercise for the student.)

Looking over what I've written above, I see that I haven't addressed even half of what I disagreed with... but I've spent too much time that I should have been sleeping on this already.

Xenophon

P.S. Even when I disagree with zerospinboson, I must say that it is nice to have a thoughtful person on the other side of the discussion.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Interesting statement. Biologically impossible, but interesting. I had no idea that males had the right to "give birth."
[SNIP]

Can I be first? <pregnant pause/> I'll sell my story to The National Inquirer for a zillion dollars! That way I'll be able to afford all the eBooks I want.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the veal.

Xenophon

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Really, people ... am I the only person who bothers to fact check Harry's posts??

Nope, plenty of posts where people question Harry's posts, and plenty of posts where Harry questions others'.

While I'm here though, might as well stick in a thought about the topic (this is the Conservatory after all ).

I've always been struck by Mme de Staël's maxim "to know all is to forgive all" - to me that seems both profound and comforting .

The knee jerk reaction is "but what if your x was y'd by z" - and the honest answer is I don't know. I hope I could live up to that principle; and every x I know would hope so too (as I would if I was x). But if I failed to live up to the principle, that wouldn't invalidate it. (And it also doesn't mean, imho, that my forgiveness matters, or is even relevant, in most situations - any more than my condemnation.)

[HarryT]

Apologies for the error; I think, though, that the point I was making remains valid, regardless of that - which is that there is clear evidence that tightening gun control laws lowers the suicide rate.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

That if they choose to have children, they MUST be responsible for their support?

Because you're not punishing the parents when you don't give them anything, you're punishing a next generation of children.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Not so! Not even close!!! See this reference or this one (at Wikipedia), or any of a wide variety of others. Income disparity in the US is middle-of-the-pack, with some countries being moderately lower and others being drastically higher.

Hm. It appears I was inaccurate in stating what I meant.
I was more referring to wealth distribution (which might also be a better indicator for intergenerational (and to a lesser extent intragenerational) social mobility. Throwaway lines like "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth." come to mind (From ISBN 1583227385), or this:

"While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households." (while this may not be the biggest disparity in %ages, it probably is in actual income and PP)

Social mobility is a funny thing to measure. For example, do you include an individual's movement over time?

I'm more interested in intergenerational social mobility.
Also, I recall reading that while mobility through the top quintiles is fairly common, moving out of the bottom quintile is nearly impossible, for whatever reason.
more wiki:

"Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2006, the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold.1 Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than other developed nations except the United Kingdom, which has the lowest standard of living for impoverished children in the developed world."

combined with this quote to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of census bureau figures:

"The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn't have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen... The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimum."

Those "relatively high costs associated with getting a good education" are part of the picture. But even just finishing high-school while making sure you actually learned something is enough to take your household into the middle fifth or even the fourth fifth. And that is a step that is well within the reach of any child who wishes to learn and whose family actually encourages them to do so. No college expenses required.

Sure, but by leaving those families to fend for themselves, you're dooming everyone of the next generation that springs from them as well, except those happy few that are motivated enough to know what they want at age 15.

And I haven't even touched on the many ways of going to college that are available to motivated students. The Ivy League? If you can get yourself admitted, they'll find a way for you to attend no matter how bad your family's finances. Really! Lots of well-respected private schools do the same. Then there're state schools, community colleges, student loans, gov't grants, etc. When I hear someone say they "can't afford to go to college" I translate that as "I'm not willing to make financial sacrifices now to have a better life later." Because that's what it really boils down to.

Yeah, but available to how many? It's all well and good, this philantropy thing, but it doesn't really solve systemic issues.

Hmmmm... It is immediately obvious to the casual observer that not everybody has "an equal chance to make it." Some are born to wealth, others to poverty. Some are genius-level smart, others are handicapped. But there are plenty of factors that are clearly within the control of motivated individuals, should they choose to control them. Will you work at your schooling in order to learn? Or will you refuse to study because "it's boring" or "that's selling out to the man" (a popular line when I was in grade-school) or <fill-in-popular-excuse-here>? Will you encourage your children to read? Or park them in front of the TV?

And among which classes are these attitudes most common? those who already made it, or those who feel it's hopeless?
It's not about what I would do as a parent, it's about what a parent living in that bottom quintile (or the bottom 30-35%, if you believe the above quotes) would do to their children.

Aside: If you are not a professional teacher, how many people have you taught to read? I haven't hit 10 yet, but I'll get there. Meanwhile, my wife has seen a dozen adult students from barely able to read all the way through their GED (high-school diploma equivalent, for non-US readers). All volunteer effort. And much more typical of the US than "fix it with a government program." See a problem? Don't like it? Get out there and DO something about it!

My whole point with this isn't that it's noble to want to help people, it's that not letting the govt do this means that the efforts will be unreliable for those who want it, and not mandatory for those who don't. Caritas is inefficient, if for no other reason than that it's too small-scale.
Access to primary/secondary education isn't a right, it's a duty.

As for equality of access to healthcare, schooling, etc. I've been in plenty of the "hopeless inner city schools." They suck. But you can still learn there, if you want to.
I note, however, that education outcomes are far more strongly influenced by family attitudes than by the outside world.

Yes, you can. The problem with teens, however, is that their brains aren't even fully grown yet, and specifically those areas of the brain that deal with "persistence", or the strength/will to motivate yourself to do something have not. (Has to do with myelination, which only finishes around your mid-20s.)
Why would you want to create extra barriers for children that probably already come from a bad household (something they can do nothing about)?
Furthermore, and as a last point: access to healthcare is something that benefits all of society, as it will yield a healthier work force. Right now, once you become ill while not holding a job, or if it happens before you get a contract, you're screwed. Oddly, this line of argument is one that has mostly been taken up by your CoCs, and the argument doesn't seem to have made it to the UHC lobby yet. (or they consider it uncaring, or something. anyway) Also, your healthcare system is terribly wasteful (you spend what, 2-3x what we do and still have a population that is unhealthier?), so if that was changed, a large part of the argument against UHC would be invalidated, because you'd be able to afford it at no additional cost compared to the old situation.
Sure, your doctors make more than they do here (probably in part because they have to pay off those silly 100-150k$ debts), and you have so many lawyers because they're being paid by the doctors (although I wonder why there are so many more malpractice suits in the USA than here; are they more incompetent? it boggles the mind :P), but it's not that much more.

Lastly, tertiary education here costs me about €1500 in tuition, and another, say, €4000 in living expenses a year. This is the case for everyone (well, not the living expenses, as I'm probably a bit less spendthrift than most) who gets a bachelor/master here, and even though we're probably not up to the standards of your best universities, we're probably a whole lot better than most of what you have to offer there.

Also, you're welcome