Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Hi As both and strict non conformist pointed out, my example IS a bad one! didn't use those exact words, but did point out people CAN think beyond the confines of their circumstances. (my response is both chagrined and amused, as NOW I can see that my example is bad and understand why!) renaissanzelady Ok, so your example is that of parents that aren't exactly good role models, but riddle me this: how many people manage to live entirely under the roof of their parents without outside influences to compare against? In other words, your example is... a bad one! The very fact of people watching TV (assuming they're not so dirt-poor to not even have that) is that they'll be very much aware that there's more to life that's available in the rest of the world than is conceived of even by the most shortsighted of parents that are imbeciles and don't care about teaching their kids via leading by example towards things that are gainful, and anyone that thinks that "I deserve better!" and has actual ambition now has enough motivation to at least seek it out, somehow, from someone, something, whatever. In effect, if they aren't deliberately living under a rock under no control of their own, where they have zero outside contact with reality, if they aren't utterly lazy and worthless as individuals, they have at least enough that they can know that they can work towards improving their situation, even if it is very slowly: slow forward progress is infinitely better than pure stagnation and apathy towards one's existence and future.> >>The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over > again and expecting different results.<<> > Not insanity, but lack of opportunity. The insanity is in capitalism and > statism.> > -- > Mark A. , Ph.D. > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------> > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _> .. Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 : **>>I do not see any segment of society as being dominated. In the western world, anyone is free to move out of their station in life in either an upward or downward direction.<< If that were true, one would expect to see approximately proportional representations of all ethnicities in social class structures. That is clearly not the case. I live in an affluent suburban county on the Kansas side of the Kansas City area. Most people here are white. Next door is a much lower-income county, also on the Kansas side. It is substantially minority. >>You speak as though there is some conspiracy or design to repress entire segments of the population. The motivating factor is only survival.<< No. Like I said before, as a social scientist, I dismiss most conspiracy theories, like the illuminati conspiracy, as evidence of P.T. Barnum's maxim. I look at the data. >>The idea failed because society did not act according to how Reagan and Thatcher thought it would, proving that any political or economic system must take into account the actions of its people and be flexible enough to change with them.<< Considering that the problems were a direct result of deregulation, if they did, the problems would likely have been far worse >>If you eliminate the currency system, then what happens. May a person take what they need? Or is each person allotted the same amount of what the state thinks they need? In the first instance, one person may take everything they can get their hands on, and if you try to stop them, they will feel enslaved by the state, and wish to be emancipated from it. In the second instance, if everything is distributed equally, some people, believing themselves to be more deserving, will also wish to be free from this repression. The only way to prevent social unrest in either case is re-education, jail, or punishment, in which case the state or whatever politcal system exists becomes the repressor.<< People should, assuming they are contributing to society, receive what they need (guaranteed minimum and maximum income). I would also not call your scenario " repression. " If people are defending the masses, not defending themselves, they are emancipators, not oppressors. >>Consummerism is caused by greed and also what we can simplistically call Maslow's hierarcy of needs. << Maslow's hierarchy is one of the great untested models of the last 100 years. It is also substantially untestable (and I disagree with most of it). >>**My question to you is: Who gets to deny the non-working person food? The state? How repressive. In a capitalistic democracy, we give the starving food stamps.<< I would not deny them food. I would send them to a facility where they could be occupationally (and perhaps psychologically) rehabilitated. >>And ignorant statement, which I am not going to get into at the moment. Hopefully Raven will call you out on that, she being Native American.<< My statement is based on data. Native Americans have historically been the poorest segment of the American population. The casino industry has been one, but not the only, reason why many Native Americans are doing better. **>>When the average worker knows as much as a corporate executive does, does everything a corporate executive has done, and does what a corporate executive does, I am sure they will be paid as a corporate executive.<< The issue, IMO, is equitable opportunity structures, not how much someone knows as a result of having received opportunities. >>Under your system, such a person would then have his legs cut out from under him and robbed of all the wealth he is justly entitled to.<< Wealth, IMO, is not individual. It is collective. Societies decide how that wealth should be distributed. >>There is Favoritism in Marxism. If a group of Maxists are going about something wrong and only one can see it and refuses to work out of protest, he is denied food because he is not working while the rest continue to favor themselves even though they are unknowing working against themselves and against marxism.<< I never said anything about denying people food. Marx said that people who do not work should not eat. The conclusion is not to starve people but to educate them. >>Who decides what is appropriate? The state?<< Communism, by Marx's definition (and mine), is *stateless*. That is why Leninism, Maoism, etc. are all aberrations. They did not even meet the standard of socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). >>There is no domination going on. Only in the eyes of people who are too lazy to get off their butts and work for a living is there domination going on.<< The evidence of domination is ethnic, racial, and gender inequality. ** >>If they remain in a social class, it is by choice.<< Most poor people want to be poor? Not according to the data. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 *: * >>I think you need to get out of the classroom and into the barrios my degreed professor. Do some fieldwork.<< When I lived in Georgia (1989-1993), I lived in a poor Black community (by choice) in the southeastern part of Macon. I was the only white person in the apartment complex. As I said, I also dated a poor (white) woman. >>I could go on, but need not. It's plainly obvioius to anyone who lives or visits such a community what goes on and why.<< Poverty, and living in poor communities, is no fun. I know from personal experience. I moved into the area in order to experience it. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 strictnon_conformist wrote: >>And yet, you persist in calling yourself a doctoral sociologist. Wow, what a flaming hypocrite that makes you! Either that, or a bald-faced liar, because any sociologist that has observed social reality would know that people are individuals first ...<< Making attacks is a sign of having lost an argument (or being otherwise unable to defend it). Sorry, I don't reply to attacks. Mark , sociologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 ravenmagic2003 wrote: >>Having dealt first hand with a number of individuals living in subsidized housing and/or on Social Assistance and/or who are part of the working poor, I can assure you that drug dealers and addicts living in poor areas are generally very good acquaintances.<< After your personal attacks on me, based on factually incorrect information, I can see no alternative but to leave this list. Normally, I would privately write to one of the list managers. In this case, you are one of them, so I have no workable options. I hope you treat other academics, if they ever happen to join your list, better than you have treated me. Mark , sociologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Let me help you out: Near the top of the screen, there's a link called " Edit Membership " which, at the bottom of the screen, has a button/link " Leave Group " that's what you need to press, and confirm. Simple and logical and factual, unlike all you've attempted to shove down our throats, with poorly-researched " facts " and piss-poor logic not based on what human nature truly is, but only your interpretation of things. As you've found out, this isn't a " Me too! " forum that agrees with people's points of view just because they post them. > >>Having dealt first hand with a number of individuals living in > subsidized housing and/or on Social Assistance and/or who are part of > the working poor, I can assure you that drug dealers and addicts living > in poor areas are generally very good acquaintances.<< > > After your personal attacks on me, based on factually incorrect > information, I can see no alternative but to leave this list. Normally, > I would privately write to one of the list managers. In this case, you > are one of them, so I have no workable options. > > I hope you treat other academics, if they ever happen to join your list, > better than you have treated me. > > Mark , sociologist > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Mark wrote: " ... <snip> ... I hope you treat other academics, if they ever happen to join your list, better than you have treated me ... <snip> ... " I have not mistreated you. I stated that you had made racist remarks about Aboriginals and you have accused me of calling you a racist. That is not unlike many people who cannot understand the difference between those with Autism-like symptoms and Autism. They are not the same thing at all. While it is unfortunate that you have chosen to leave the list at this point in time while I am in Toronto with a severely ill child, thereby cutting and running when it is more likely than not that I will be unable to respond to you until returning home in 2+ weeks, you have demonstrated how you operate in the cadre of discussions. How sad. Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Education standards in the US have declined a great deal over the last 4 decades or so. Like Mimi said, a lot of things have gone out of fashion like personal finance and economics, as well as government, ethics, civics, etc. The schools I went to had these things, to a degree. We had a pretty good idea of how things worked. Then when I went to college, there was only one personal finance class and about 30 remedial English classes. The personal Finance class only lasted a few years on the roster, then it was dropped and still hasn't come back so far as I know. To function properly, a Democracy needs an educated populace that understand how the government works, how its economy works, and so on. the less understood these things are, the greater the danger to the Democracy. I think that is where we are now what with the high dropout rate, the lowest or next lowest standings in international ratings, that we have to import educated people from other countries because our own schools aren't turning out enough competent people. Its not to say the kids can't learn. They know tons about pop culture. They can learn all kinds of sports statistics and complicated card games and so on. But ask them to apply that kind of drive to skills they will really need and they won't do it. Really I think we need to go back to two kinds of schools, three really. The lower grades, up to 6th or 7th, would be the same for everyone. The emphasis there would be the basics like math, reading, real history, etc. After that time, like in the old days, there would be two schools: vocational and college prep. Vocational schools would be for the majority of students and would include hands on classes for blue collar jobs, training for the basic job entry skills, plus training in some more math, more reading, personal finance and a civics class that would include government, ethics, economics and the like to teach the details about how the government works. College prep schools would include civics and personal finance, but would have an emphasis on elite courses like chemistry, physics, etc., along with study skills, reading skills, etc. What people need to understand is that not everyone is college material. This should be clear in how over 50% drop out within 2 years. Most other spend their time partying and carrying on. It would make far more sense to have college for those best suited for it, maybe the top 25% of high school students. The others would have to put in a few years in real life before they could apply for college on their own merit. Based on my experience, I am willing to bet that those students who come back to college will be very serious students. Sure they might need remedial study courses, but that would actually be to their advantage. Shop Dell's full line of Laptops now starting at $349! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 > > Hi; > I've watched this thead with interest. (having met people who refuse things like financial counselling to help manage their resources, and others who learn what they need, to do more than just survive) > 1. Maybe some are able to rise above their peers (friends, relatives etc) > and make the most of opportunities, Some are encouraged by parents teachers etc, some are also very inner directed. > 2. while others chose to stay 'down' by not moving beyond their peers. staying in poverty and lack of education, whether due to an inner lack of motivation or lack of outer encouragement or both? > renaissanzelady >  Tom said: I used to work for a firm that regularly received demographic information from actuarials, and the profile of the working poor was quite pathetic. Without spin doctors, these are people that one could hardly pity. They fritter away opportunities for education when it is given to them. They may have TVs or radios, but chose not to watch or listen to educational programming. When given the option between eating healthy foods and junk foods, they choose the junk foods. They take poor care of themselves medically speaking. They have more kids than they can afford, make unwise financial decisions, and can stretch their money only so far because they are unable to resist temptations such as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and wagering/gambling. Mimi adds, like everything there are many different attitudes around responsibility. Some cannot help themselves or get out of their way and they struggle in vain, some just do not have the mental ability to concieve of a better plan (nor do they have the stamina (determination) to elevate themselves in their station I have heard very often in terms of getting Ravi's needs met That I am a good advocate. (i assess whats going on and seek out the solution or when I don't know how to solve the problem, I try to articulate the issue that needs remediation. If one applies this to all society, we can see that those whom are able to communicate or answer questions and make decisions fair better. We are not given a guidebook and many parents do not lead their offspring well, this leads to a vicious cycle of downtrodden peoples (They have no clue on how to better themselves) and they fall prey to many bad habits and vices. It is too simple to say the poor are lazy and that is why they are poor. Public school is a band-aid, it treats symptoms and never addresses the problems. When we were children we had some measuse of home economics (mini adult and sustainability training) government, business and societies geneal malase have led to a culture of witless individuals, that need retraining. We are reaping the benefits of the convience age. We have produced a society that cannot do or help themselves, The time period that made poor men into wealthy men was the turn of the century (Hard study, and observation were desireable traits) The musclebound man didn't always get the girl (it was the guy that could get things done and figure out solutions) well you get the gist (sorry for the rant) Mimi It is my belief that we need to rear and educate better, that we should have some standards, and that welfare is an emergency measure not a lifestyle or dynasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Hi; I agree with miminm's statement: 'It is my belief that we need to rear and educate better, that we should have some standards, and that welfare is an emergency measure not a lifestyle or dynasty.' When I was in school, we were not taught cognitive skills. If our parents did not teach us then we either had to figure it out or?? By the time my child was in school, they were being taught some cognitive skills. Her school Principal and i had a brief discussion about this, the principal agreed that when we were kids, the schools did not teach cognitive skills, at least to th extent that is done now. BUT ironically, when i was in school, my mom bemoaned the fact that I was not taught to memorize 'classical' poems and other memory stuff to the same extent that she was when she was in school! Feel free to 'rant' renaissanzelady Subject: Re: Now: Points of view.To: FAMSecretSociety Received: Friday, June 12, 2009, 11:48 AM >> Hi;> I've watched this thead with interest. (having met people who refuse things like financial counselling to help manage their resources, and others who learn what they need, to do more than just survive)> 1. Maybe some are able to rise above their peers (friends, relatives etc) > and make the most of opportunities, Some are encouraged by parents teachers etc, some are also very inner directed.> 2. while others chose to stay 'down' by not moving beyond their peers. staying in poverty and lack of education, whether due to an inner lack of motivation or lack of outer encouragement or both?> renaissanzelady> Tom said:I used to work for a firm that regularly received demographic information from actuarials, and the profile of the working poor was quite pathetic. Without spin doctors, these are people that one could hardly pity. They fritter away opportunities for education when it is given to them. They may have TVs or radios, but chose not to watch or listen to educational programming. When given the option between eating healthy foods and junk foods, they choose the junk foods. They take poor care of themselves medically speaking. They have more kids than they can afford, make unwise financial decisions, and can stretch their money only so far because they are unable to resist temptations such as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and wagering/gambling.Mimi adds, like everything there are many different attitudes around responsibility. Some cannot help themselves or get out of their way and they struggle in vain, some just do not have the mental ability to concieve of a better plan (nor do they have the stamina (determination) to elevate themselves in their stationI have heard very often in terms of getting Ravi's needs met That I am a good advocate. (i assess whats going on and seek out the solution or when I don't know how to solve the problem, I try to articulate the issue that needs remediation. If one applies this to all society, we can see that those whom are able to communicate or answer questions and make decisions fair better. We are not given a guidebook and many parents do not lead their offspring well, this leads to a vicious cycle of downtrodden peoples (They have no clue on how to better themselves) and they fall prey to many bad habits and vices.It is too simple to say the poor are lazy and that is why they are poor. Public school is a band-aid, it treats symptoms and never addresses the problems.When we were children we had some measuse of home economics (mini adult and sustainability training) government, business and societies geneal malase have led to a culture of witless individuals, that need retraining. We are reaping the benefits of the convience age. We have produced a society that cannot do or help themselves,The time period that made poor men into wealthy men was the turn of the century (Hard study, and observation were desireable traits)The musclebound man didn't always get the girl (it was the guy that could get things done and figure out solutions) well you get the gist (sorry for the rant) Mimi It is my belief that we need to rear and educate better, that we should have some standards, and that welfare is an emergency measure not a lifestyle or dynasty. Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 > Tom said: > I used to work for a firm that regularly received demographic information from actuarials, and the profile of the working poor was quite pathetic. Without spin doctors, these are people that one could hardly pity. They fritter away opportunities for education when it is given to them. They may have TVs or radios, but chose not to watch or listen to educational programming. When given the option between eating healthy foods and junk foods, they choose the junk foods. They take poor care of themselves medically speaking. They have more kids than they can afford, make unwise financial decisions, and can stretch their money only so far because they are unable to resist temptations such as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and wagering/gambling. There are indeed lots of folks like that. They dope their minds to blot out the situation, because there seems nothing else left for them to bother to do. There are also folks who are not like that at all, but never get the lucky opportunities. Or, who only get some luck later in life, so that they had to have a means to survive a lean period first in order to still be around to act on their luck when it comes. >>Public school is offered to everyone. There is no reason (besides > disability) even in the worst schools, why a person cannot receive a > decent education. There is no reason (besides disability) why a person > cannot, even in the most economically deprived neighborhoods, rise above > their station in life and earn more money than it takes to sustain them.<< Um - remember the reason, as it recurs in aspie stories. There is inappropriate pressure from teachers, who make school an object of fear and survival, hence who make it impossibly risky to take any bold steps in your answering of questions. High achievement is crushed exactly by the methods used to try to force it to happen. Then there is the oppression of having your suitability for all the education opportunities you might seek later on, judged by the personal history the bad teachers left you with, and judged still using their ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Hmmmm.... for this last bit.... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! To whit: I've been laid off 4 times through absolutely no fault of my own, and I'm currently not gainfully employed, and unemployment doesn't pay all my expenses, and if I'm never laid off again in my career, I'll be completely amazed. That doesn't stop me from going out and finding other employment, and doesn't stop me from expanding/changing my skillset for employability reasons: guess what both of those things require: continuing self-education. In the computer field, that's not merely a " good idea " but that's a " Do it or die a dinosaur " requirement. Towards that end, I'm currently in transition, and self-teaching myself relevant skills to broaden my employability in the current job market, as well as keep myself sane. I've also had a 210 foot tall construction crane fall directly on top of me, with only the steel frame of my apartment building, and a neighbor on the top floor (who was crushed to death as it came through his ceiling: not enough frame there) breaking its fall: all while I live in an area with lots of construction using very tall construction cranes, more plentiful than Starbucks (I live in the area of Starbucks world headquarters, so they're rather thick here). That hasn't stopped me from continuing on with my life, hasn't caused me to take crazy circuitous routes to avoid all the construction cranes, or (if I were to make a true effort to be sure I was never within reach) to do all my business completely outside of any downtown area that has them. I've been hit by a car while I was riding my bicycle at the age of 15, and I have x-rays that can show how I was most notably physically affected: that doesn't stop me from riding bicycles, or being a pedestrian otherwise, nor does it stop me from driving, and I don't act out of irrational fear: heck, I run long distance races alongside traffic on a regular basis on busy roads, but even more than that, I run on streets and roads that don't have volunteers watching over things, that don't have parts of lanes marked off. I've had so many bullies beat on me through the years, I can't name them all: yet, I consort with people and get business done, despite all that. What about rape victims? They generally go about continuing in their lives to be productive people, and form relationships, get married, etc. and as traumatic as that all is, they usually survive. What about those that have been in war situations? Same thing, for the most part. Perhaps they aren't the happiest about it all, but hey, life isn't perfect. What about all the other natural disasters? In 2003 the house I had was directly struck by lightning while I was taking a shower: talk about deafening, and yet, I'm not living in abject fear of lightning/thunder as a result of all that, even though if it had gone badly, I wouldn't be here today and be able to type on a computer, I mean really, it could have completely torched my house, because there was no lightning rod (if I have a house in the future, that'll be a requirement, wherever I live, if only to protect my electronics) and it fried more than half of all the stuff plugged in at the time (why some things died and other things survived, I honestly don't understand, despite my electronics background). I could go on, but there's no point: if you can't see a pattern with what I'm saying, you're hopeless, and can't see that this is all a matter of choice: you choose how you react to situations, and either it makes you stronger by you purposely choosing to work with what you've got, or you become far weaker by giving up and crying " Wo is me, everyone is always victimizing me, I'm hopeless, I'm helpless, it's not my fault, I'm damned forever by the choices of everyone else that's always picking on me, so I can't do anything to help my situation, because everyone and everything else in this mean, nasty world is to blame! " which is exactly what you're doing, and have been doing, and that's your whole purpose in life: blaming others for all the supposed success you should have, if it hadn't been for all the oppressors you've been oppressed by that damned you into your own personal Hell. Well, I'm here to tell you this, point blank: they provided bricks to assemble it, perhaps, but you've willingly taken them, and applied the mortar by your decisions to accept that it was all their fault, instead of building steps out of your personal little hole that has a well-built foundation for whining about how life and everyone around you isn't fair. You and Mark would make a good pair in that respect, because you both epitomize the victim mentality, that nothing is ever your fault, and it's always other people's faults: this is the sort of thing that results in you always being downtrodden, because you lay down and scream " Walk all over me! " and then complain when they actually do, which is sad, because you are clearly too intelligent to not be able to help yourself out of your hole, but the problem is a matter of will: you will not do what's required, and the only will that matters is yours in that respect. There are millions of people far worse off that pull themselves up above your current situation over time, and I have my parents as examples of that. Where there's a will, there's a way: where there's a whine, there's an annoying sound, and nobody wants to get involved. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from getting a higher education past K-12 (US terminology for pre-college) beyond yourself, your determination, ambition, hard work, perseverance, personal sacrifice and free will. Sure, it will take a lot of time: WAAAAAAHHH!!! That's the way of any worthwhile major bit of education, and I'm far from having stopped my personally-directed educational program (I'll be dead long before I'm where I want to be). But, if you put your energy and intelligence into it, you absolutely can do it: but will you? That's the only useful question you should ask before you attempt to answer any others. There's virtual classrooms that are available from anywhere on earth, there's correspondence courses you can do at your own pace, there's various programs undoubtedly available in your region: if not, you'll just have to find a place where you can go that has what you're looking for, and take that risk, which is what most humans are forced to do: take a risk, and they don't always have things work out as desired. Nothing ventured, nothing gained: if you never take a risk, you are almost guaranteed to never get " lucky " because frankly, those potential opportunities are never presented to people that put their heads in the sand and don't take on risk, because risk-takers rarely hang around those that never take risks of their own volition. Ok, so there's a very real chance that to get into some educational program you'll be forced to take remedial classes to qualify: WAAAAAH once again! There are people in their 80's and older that finally get college degrees, or even the equivalent of graduating from US high schools, guess how much pride they had to swallow? I'm asking you to go forth and become an example of someone that has demonstrated they can be successful, instead of an " I can't " victim, because whether you say you can or can't, you're probably right (not sure who to quote on that). > Um - remember the reason, as it recurs in aspie stories. > There is inappropriate pressure from teachers, who make school an object of fear and survival, hence who make it impossibly risky to take any bold steps in your answering of questions. High achievement is crushed exactly by the methods used to try to force it to happen. Then there is the oppression of having your suitability for all the education opportunities you might seek later on, judged by the personal history the bad teachers left you with, and judged still using their ideas. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 " Then when I went to college, there was only one personal finance class and about 30 remedial English classes. The personal Finance class only lasted a few years on the roster, then it was dropped and still hasn't come back so far as I know. " I don't know how it is today, but when I went to college, they had " placement exams " , meaning that if you passed the tests, you could just skip those general education requirements and get your required credit hours in elective classes or other classes in your major. I placed out of Spanish 101 and Spanish 102 as well as Math 101 and Math 102 even though math was my worst subject. Anyway, thaat meant I had 12 credit hours to devote to anything I chose. I thought that was great, because it meant I could learn all kinds of new things in areas I would not have otherwise explored. Had I taken one more class, archeology would have been my minor. Other kids saw no sense in placing out of gen-ed classes, but if they did, they took " blow-off " classes (like Phys Ed or some of the more frivolous art classes) to ease their study load in college. Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 "There are indeed lots of folks like that. They dope their minds to blot out the situation, because there seems nothing else left for them to bother to do." You make a good point Maurice. Some people get depressed to a point where they get stuck in a rut. "There are also folks who are not like that at all, but never get the lucky opportunities. Or, who only get some luck later in life, so that they had to have a means to survive a lean period first in order to still be around to act on their luck when it comes." Luck plays a role in everyone's life by its presence or its absence or by its goodness or its badness. I will admit to sometimes being jealous for not having as much good luck as others. I maintain however, that in circumstances where it seems like there ar eno opportunities available, and where it seems no good luck is to be found, a person can still try at something. When a person finds themselvews in dire circumstances, making an attempt at something is better than stagnation where the outcome is constantly predictable and known."Um - remember the reason, as it recurs in aspie stories. There is inappropriate pressure from teachers, who make school an object of fear and survival, hence who make it impossibly risky to take any bold steps in your answering of questions. High achievement is crushed exactly by the methods used to try to force it to happen. Then there is the oppression of having yoursuitability for all the education opportunities you might seek later on, judged by the personal history the bad teachers left you with, and judged still using their ideas." I will not argue that this may have been your experience, and I will not deny that I have had a few bad and, in two cases, extremely repressive teachers. However, there is a life outside of svchool, even as you are made to attend it. You can learn on your own, even if you are unable to learn in school. You can also learn about subjects that interest you and subjects that they do not teach in school. And once compulsory education is overwith, you can kick the dust from your heals and head in any direction you want. I think the best way to do this is self-educate in the areas that interest you most and try to become an authority in that area. In this day and age, when education is so poor anyway, merely having a degree is not so important as the what you've managed to learn during its acquisition. If, on your own, you can learn more than a degreed professional, and demonstrate that to potential employers, they will be inclined to hire you. Raven does not have a college degree, but she has taught college. She has cut and released record albums, managed her own bands, etc. You can achieve similar or even greater success. To say that it will be easy would be a lie. What you have to do is work harder than you have ever worked before. But it should in a sense be an easier venture because you will be learning at your own pace and in circumstances more favorable to ythat which fosters learning. And you would be learning without incurring criticism from anyone because you would have no teachers except books, various types of media, and mentors who you would be working along side of rather than "under." Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 > What people need to understand is that not everyone is college material. This should be clear in how over 50% drop out within 2 years. Most other spend their time partying and carrying on. It would make far more sense to have college for those best suited for it, maybe the top 25% of high school students. The others would have to put in a few years in real life before they could apply for college on their own merit. Based on my experience, I am willing to bet that those students who come back to college will be very serious students. Sure they might need remedial study courses, but that would actually be to their advantage. For a miriad of reason there are those that are not college material, but the system fils these people by not offering alternative learning or vocational training and skills testing This leads to lazy get rich quickers (drugs, theft, welfare) out of frustration at seeing other do well while they watch. Instead of being proactive they don't know what to do and society says things like work for Mickey D's. That really isn't a good solution People can do other things besides being a white collar worker, but society looks down on you if you aren't white collar or famous. Worse still inner city youth have a legacy of unwed mothers and welfare dependence, when higher ed fails them they seek to problem solve with convience not hard work, but they are not well spoken and getting a job in public view is likely WalMart. These jobs do not afford families or housing (but they do all those things anyway perpetuating the single parent teen pregnancy cycle. People would have to have some sort of self respect, or standard to achieve. There is little motivation to change (based on current environment) This is true of both genders and all colors. Once a long time ago I was asked based on my personal and family history why I was sane, I have thought about this a lot. even when those around me would succumb to vice, I refused, without station i had an inner standard. I think it came from the forigner work ethic. (first gen Americans, work to death, but my children seem to be growing up more like their peers, (they tell me I am crazy and no one could meet my standard) Of course this saddens me, but I am at a loss on how to improve their attitude. I hope over time they can see the benefits of my non-stop tutorials (but perhaps since i am not rich this never makes an impact) sigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 > > My mother was always watching soap operas and sitcoms, but that never stopped me from watching Nova, and Frontline and National Geographic. > > My father watched sit-coms and some public boradcasting stuff, but rarely watched TV to begin with. > > I watched intelligent programming because I knew it was an easy way to learn things. All you had to do was watch TV. > > > Administrator > I admit I did watch what my parents watched (soaps) but in my teens I could no longer stand the effect TV had on my life on my own I watched programs on science, robotics and read books way beyond my peers. (well lets face it I read at all ) I also watched science programs and documentaries when I was 5 mysister complained and we had to watch what our parents wanted (so I got up at 1AM and watched through the night (mostly sci-fi on at that time)in any case I was risistant to being coopted into the herd or group and early on decided I wanted to be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 > > Ok, so your example is that of parents that aren't exactly good role models, but riddle me this: how many people manage to live entirely under the roof of their parents without outside influences to compare against? In other words, your example is... a bad one! The very fact of people watching TV (assuming they're not so dirt-poor to not even have that) is that they'll be very much aware that there's more to life that's available in the rest of the world than is conceived of even by the most shortsighted of parents that are imbeciles and don't care about teaching their kids via leading by example towards things that are gainful, and anyone that thinks that " I deserve better! " and has actual ambition now has enough motivation to at least seek it out, somehow, from someone, something, whatever. In effect, if they aren't deliberately living under a rock under no control of their own, where they have zero outside contact with reality, if they aren't utterly lazy and worthless as individuals, they have at least enough that they can know that they can work towards improving their situation, even if it is very slowly: slow forward progress is infinitely better than pure stagnation and apathy towards one's existence and future. > while I would like to say that you are 100% correct I cannot. You assume everyone has the drive and mental ability you have. Many people like and prefer to join the herd. (I mean they are " normal " social individuals with great worth and merit) Many humas lack inner drive. As per your posts you have it, many many perople have it (on this forum from what I have seen) Even when they deny themselves any strength and say they are captive the mind stays free. In my case I think I survive and suffer because I can reason and see what is going on, but as many here know this is also sad because we know whats going on, many of us myself included have chosen to stay where and the way we are even though we would like better (monetarily) but money isn't the only factor in life. I am in the position I am in after careful considerations of the options and what I would have to sacrifice for monitary gain, at present this is my best solution. One that is smarter or more able may have chosen something else (that is where aptitude comes in) Time is limited, I can improve myself but at what long and short term costs and are those preferable (is there a net gain over time) anyway it is a long winded way of saying strict cannot assume the rest of society is anywhere near his mental capability Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 > >>>**My question to you is: Who gets to deny the non-working person food? The state? How repressive. In a capitalistic democracy, we give the starving food stamps.<< I would not deny them food. I would send them to a facility where they could be occupationally (and perhaps psychologically) rehabilitated. mimi says: If you believe that all that recieve food stams are in some way innocent poor you are sadly mistaken. I have never been shy (in this forum) to point out I recieve such funds, that being said I have been witness to abuse of american kindness. People sell food stamps for alcohol or drugs, or they buy their weight in whoppie pies, or sell it for pennies on the dollar to get cash. I held back before but having been in those facilities I have seen the mother with 8 children and no father, the woman who abuses her charges white styling up herself. This behavior is not limited to the poor but the poor are rewarded for breeding. I do have to say that when I have gone to places where mothers have disabled children this is far less likely the case. I live near Boston where many specialists are and in many cases where care for ASD children is available (even dentists shy away from children on the spectrum) Your views seem shel;tered and idealistic, you paint a opicture of the down trodden in Norman Rockwell strokes. It might be nicer if you were right but you aren't and to teach that this is true only makes poverty look appealing as one will be taken care of. While I take the food I refuse welfare, even though I could qualify, that is because the government requires soul possestion for those funds and I will not succumb to the culture nor the claws of government that wishes to invade me. Again the question of what you will sell yourself for. The programs in place do not educate the recepiants out of need it becomes a downward spiral. It also would make Ravi government property in a way and I cannot risk him that way. I am not sure if I am clear, there is no innocence in this mode of life. The funds spread the mental poison and family will live for decades on thie system passing it on to the next generation where it is accepted. The people you want to feed don't really exsist (and they are not offered useful education) They are not eased out of debt or poverty and they are punised for getting off the dole. My point it is far more complex and dark than you want to see. While not everyone is a crook it is reminent of certain rings of hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 On the subject of education I've always encouraged my children to absorb as much as they could and do not fault them when a subject isn't their "cup of tea" so to speak. Everyone has different strengths and I agree with in that young adults should be counseled to find a route that will lead them to independence. Everyone isn't cut out for nor should take on large sums of debt to take the college road when they are best suited for a vocation. I think my daughter's class picked a wonderful quote for their 8th grade graduation, that is: "With the gifts that you have been given comes the responsibilty to use and develop them" ~ Les Brown Whatever those gifts may be. Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 " (they tell me I am crazy and no one could meet my standard) Of course this saddens me, but I am at a loss on how to improve their attitude. " Boy do I hate it when peoiple say " No one could meet your standards. " I met my standards, so that means one person did, and my standards are more lenient than those that I was subjected to by others. But apparently no one in the world encountered those others, who were my parents or their friends, or my college professors or my bosses or what have you, except me. Apparently all those classes I sat in, and all those people I worked with in my boss's departments were mere illusions. THEY were apparently not subjected to the standards I was??? Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Hi; There are those who advance intellectually, observe life, draw conclusions, make decisions, etc, AND advocate for their kids, try to instill work ethic in their kids! These people have intellectual riches even if not financial. Each of us has what we consider to be important in life, what we will sacrifice for. For some it is their kids, for me it is my cats, now that my daughter is grown. RL Subject: Re: Now: Points of view.To: FAMSecretSociety Received: Monday, June 15, 2009, 7:30 AM >> Ok, so your example is that of parents that aren't exactly good role models, but riddle me this: how many people manage to live entirely under the roof of their parents without outside influences to compare against? In other words, your example is... a bad one! The very fact of people watching TV (assuming they're not so dirt-poor to not even have that) is that they'll be very much aware that there's more to life that's available in the rest of the world than is conceived of even by the most shortsighted of parents that are imbeciles and don't care about teaching their kids via leading by example towards things that are gainful, and anyone that thinks that "I deserve better!" and has actual ambition now has enough motivation to at least seek it out, somehow, from someone, something, whatever. In effect, if they aren't deliberately living under a rock under no control of their own, where they have zero outside contact with reality, if they aren't utterly lazy and worthless as individuals, they have at least enough that they can know that they can work towards improving their situation, even if it is very slowly: slow forward progress is infinitely better than pure stagnation and apathy towards one's existence and future.> while I would like to say that you are 100% correct I cannot. You assume everyone has the drive and mental ability you have. Many people like and prefer to join the herd. (I mean they are "normal" social individuals with great worth and merit) Many humas lack inner drive. As per your posts you have it, many many perople have it (on this forum from what I have seen) Even when they deny themselves any strength and say they are captive the mind stays free.In my case I think I survive and suffer because I can reason and see what is going on, but as many here know this is also sad because we know whats going on, many of us myself included have chosen to stay where and the way we are even though we would like better (monetarily) but money isn't the only factor in life. I am in the position I am in after careful considerations of the options and what I would have to sacrifice for monitary gain, at present this is my best solution. One that is smarter or more able may have chosen something else (that is where aptitude comes in) Time is limited, I can improve myself but at what long and short term costs and are those preferable (is there a net gain over time)anyway it is a long winded way of saying strict cannot assume the rest of society is anywhere near his mental capability Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 > Boy do I hate it when peoiple say " No one could meet your standards. " > > Apparently all those classes I sat in, and all those people I worked with in my boss's departments were mere illusions. THEY were apparently not subjected to the standards I was??? > > > Administrator > yes by that logic, no one can surpass us. Obviously it cannot be true. I like what you wrote about those illusionary beings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I have been busy with a large local meet-up of aspies who came here from all over Britain on a weekend holiday, before getting the chance to answer this. That means, during the weekend it was a simple practical fact that " I can't " sit down and write my answer, doing too many other more worthwhile things with my time. Am I to suppose that having more worthwhile things to do made me hopeless? when I knew that in a few days there would be an " I can " moment, i.e. now I have got some spare time again to do it. You were answering a view I expressed on what political attitudes and policies are correct towards disadvantaged people of all kinds. A generic opinion about society. Nowhere, in the post you are answering, did I talk about myself. Though I made a reference to disastrous school situations and you remember that I had one, I was still talking generically about society. I said nothing whatever about what I personally am doing. > > > you choose how you react to situations, and either it makes you stronger by you purposely choosing to work with what you've got, or you become far weaker by giving up and crying " Wo is me, everyone is always victimizing me, I'm hopeless, I'm helpless, it's not my fault, I'm damned forever by the choices of everyone else that's always picking on me, so I can't do anything to help my situation, because everyone and everything else in this mean, nasty world is to blame! " There is a third choice, actually. You can get up and say, victory is mine, look I left the oppressors destroyed and humiliated, and I'm going to do something useful and high self-esteem with my life which will help others, by creating a trail of consciousness about the oppression issues, expanding the lobby for change. > if it hadn't been for all the oppressors you've been oppressed by that damned you into your own personal Hell. Never once, in the entire time you have known me online, have I claimed presently to be in a personal Hell. It's clearly you who wants to believe that. I was in a personal Hell 27 years ago, but have always strongly triumphed that I escaped from it and left everything wrecked for all the perpetrators of it. You and Mark would make a good pair in that respect, because you both epitomize the victim mentality, > I epitomise the resistance mentality. That is stronger and more empowering than either the victim mentality or the self-hating mentality that you epitomise ( " Waa it's all my fault, I'm a bad boy and should have listened to granny " ). > this is the sort of thing that results in you always being downtrodden, because you lay down and scream " Walk all over me! " and then complain when they actually do, which is sad, because you are clearly too intelligent to not be able to help yourself out of your hole, I helped myself out of my hole when I left school, and have never been downtrodden the whole time I have been in the aspie scene. I won't be intimidated out of caring for the downtrodden, and believing in liberal fair play towards them, by the prejudice of, " Yah boo, if you talk about the downtrodden then you must be one of them/you must be in a hole. " >that pull themselves up above your current situation over time, Every guess you have ever made about my current situation has always been wrong and based on prejudice. > There is absolutely nothing stopping you from getting a higher education past K-12 (US terminology for pre-college) beyond yourself, your determination, ambition, hard work, perseverance, personal sacrifice and free will. I did a college course in Higher Sociology a year or 2 ago. What made it possible was the new rules on colleges having to acknowledge any claims students make to having specific needs to help them study. I combined this with the fact that aspieship wasn't known when I was school age, to assert the right not to be judged by any history from when I was school age. But I also claimed the right that a full judgment of meeting my needs, concerning dealing with the course exam, could not be made without knowing all my evidence on the subject, including any that I might have past reasons to feel intimidated about giving privately - hence that the mere act of applying for this college course gave me an automatic right to have a book published about education. Inevitably all I got to this was bureaucratic evasions, therefore I didn't take the exam. But that's okay, I took the course (1) to add another item to my list of unmet legal claims to get published, and (2) for the innate value of the course content, which was to give me an insight into how society is being judged by the state and where aspie things are being left out of the picture. To benefit from the course's own content and not need the exam, was a nice strong practical victory for my views on education. Right now I'm doing some training in tree and bush pruning in a woodland estate. Casual gaining of skill by practice, it's not an exam course. It is an accidental opportunity, that I took because it was there, it came from getting on well with the man who leads it, when he was a relief worker in the place where I was working before. You can't say I should have done it years earlier, because the opportunity wasn't there years earlier, it came when it came. Sawing trees is still not what I am going to define my life by: campaigning about my issues is. But campaigning about my issues does not prevent me doing other things. You talk as if it does. >But, if you put your energy and intelligence into it, you absolutely can do it: but will you? Okay, I will put my energy and intelligence into converting the whole world into agreeing with me about every issue I care about, and I absolutely can do it. You can show the folks here I absolutely can do it, by being my first convert. > take that risk, which is what most humans are forced to do: take a risk, and they don't always have things work out as desired. Folks have to make judgments about which risks to take, which not to, and when. I suppose you think the folks who wrecked the banks must have been right, because they took risks with other folks' money, and all risk taking is always right. > Nothing ventured, nothing gained: if you never take a risk, you are almost guaranteed to never get " lucky " That I grant you, is the position for me concerning marriage. But I call it looking after myself and not being dumb. I don't choose to give a woman the power to turn me into a victim in a way that I'm not yet, a man rejected and never subsequently accepted. Never been an " I can't " victim in my life. Whenever I have been an " I can't " militant, I have always been an " I can " militant as well. e.g. that I should not have been pushed to do chemistry because I have the wrong type of memory for it, my argument has always included that the good consequence of not doing chemistry is to do other things instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 After re-reading some of the posts in this thread, I am going to add my 'two cents worth' speaking figuratively.I did not take strict's comments to be a direct rebuttal of Maurice's life choices. In the English we (my family and I) speak, the word 'you' can be meant as a general term, not referring to the listener but meaning 'someone' or 'people.' Because others have sometimes misunderstood my use of 'you,' I often say 'the proverbial you' or '...you, not meaning you specifically...'Maybe Strict will clarify if his use of 'you' was general as I took it, or not....renaissanzelady (RL)--- On Tue, 6/16/09, maurice wrote:From: maurice Subject: Re: Now: Points of view.To: FAMSecretSociety Received: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 11:25 AM I have been busy with a large local meet-up of aspies who came here from all over Britain on a weekend holiday, before getting the chance to answer this. That means, during the weekend it was a simple practical fact that "I can't" sit down and write my answer, doing too many other more worthwhile things with my time. Am I to suppose that having more worthwhile things to do made me hopeless? when I knew that in a few days there would be an "I can" moment, i.e. now I have got some spare time again to do it. You were answering a view I expressed on what political attitudes and policies are correct towards disadvantaged people of all kinds. A generic opinion about society. Nowhere, in the post you are answering, did I talk about myself. Though I made a reference to disastrous school situations and you remember that I had one, I was still talking generically about society. I said nothing whatever about what I personally am doing. > > > you choose how you react to situations, and either it makes you stronger by you purposely choosing to work with what you've got, or you become far weaker by giving up and crying "Wo is me, everyone is always victimizing me, I'm hopeless, I'm helpless, it's not my fault, I'm damned forever by the choices of everyone else that's always picking on me, so I can't do anything to help my situation, because everyone and everything else in this mean, nasty world is to blame!" There is a third choice, actually. You can get up and say, victory is mine, look I left the oppressors destroyed and humiliated, and I'm going to do something useful and high self-esteem with my life which will help others, by creating a trail of consciousness about the oppression issues, expanding the lobby for change. > if it hadn't been for all the oppressors you've been oppressed by that damned you into your own personal Hell. Never once, in the entire time you have known me online, have I claimed presently to be in a personal Hell. It's clearly you who wants to believe that. I was in a personal Hell 27 years ago, but have always strongly triumphed that I escaped from it and left everything wrecked for all the perpetrators of it. You and Mark would make a good pair in that respect, because you both epitomize the victim mentality, > I epitomise the resistance mentality. That is stronger and more empowering than either the victim mentality or the self-hating mentality that you epitomise ("Waa it's all my fault, I'm a bad boy and should have listened to granny"). > this is the sort of thing that results in you always being downtrodden, because you lay down and scream "Walk all over me!" and then complain when they actually do, which is sad, because you are clearly too intelligent to not be able to help yourself out of your hole, I helped myself out of my hole when I left school, and have never been downtrodden the whole time I have been in the aspie scene. I won't be intimidated out of caring for the downtrodden, and believing in liberal fair play towards them, by the prejudice of, "Yah boo, if you talk about the downtrodden then you must be one of them/you must be in a hole." >that pull themselves up above your current situation over time, Every guess you have ever made about my current situation has always been wrong and based on prejudice. > There is absolutely nothing stopping you from getting a higher education past K-12 (US terminology for pre-college) beyond yourself, your determination, ambition, hard work, perseverance, personal sacrifice and free will. I did a college course in Higher Sociology a year or 2 ago. What made it possible was the new rules on colleges having to acknowledge any claims students make to having specific needs to help them study. I combined this with the fact that aspieship wasn't known when I was school age, to assert the right not to be judged by any history from when I was school age. But I also claimed the right that a full judgment of meeting my needs, concerning dealing with the course exam, could not be made without knowing all my evidence on the subject, including any that I might have past reasons to feel intimidated about giving privately - hence that the mere act of applying for this college course gave me an automatic right to have a book published about education. Inevitably all I got to this was bureaucratic evasions, therefore I didn't take the exam. But that's okay, I took the course (1) to add another item to my list of unmet legal claims to get published, and (2) for the innate value of the course content, which was to give me an insight into how society is being judged by the state and where aspie things are being left out of the picture. To benefit from the course's own content and not need the exam, was a nice strong practical victory for my views on education. Right now I'm doing some training in tree and bush pruning in a woodland estate. Casual gaining of skill by practice, it's not an exam course. It is an accidental opportunity, that I took because it was there, it came from getting on well with the man who leads it, when he was a relief worker in the place where I was working before. You can't say I should have done it years earlier, because the opportunity wasn't there years earlier, it came when it came. Sawing trees is still not what I am going to define my life by: campaigning about my issues is. But campaigning about my issues does not prevent me doing other things. You talk as if it does. >But, if you put your energy and intelligence into it, you absolutely can do it: but will you? Okay, I will put my energy and intelligence into converting the whole world into agreeing with me about every issue I care about, and I absolutely can do it. You can show the folks here I absolutely can do it, by being my first convert. > take that risk, which is what most humans are forced to do: take a risk, and they don't always have things work out as desired. Folks have to make judgments about which risks to take, which not to, and when. I suppose you think the folks who wrecked the banks must have been right, because they took risks with other folks' money, and all risk taking is always right. > Nothing ventured, nothing gained: if you never take a risk, you are almost guaranteed to never get "lucky" That I grant you, is the position for me concerning marriage. But I call it looking after myself and not being dumb. I don't choose to give a woman the power to turn me into a victim in a way that I'm not yet, a man rejected and never subsequently accepted. Never been an "I can't" victim in my life. Whenever I have been an "I can't" militant, I have always been an "I can" militant as well. e.g. that I should not have been pushed to do chemistry because I have the wrong type of memory for it, my argument has always included that the good consequence of not doing chemistry is to do other things instead. Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Strict quite specifically personally accused me of being in a Personal Hell and a hole, and of having a passive victim psychology of denying all ability to do anything. Without knowing any personal info to base it on. All this in reply to me expressing views about policies towards poverty, and saying nothing about myself. > Maybe Strict will clarify if his use of 'you' was general as I took it, or not.... > > renaissanzelady (RL) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.