4 ms·

> I hate seeing people's comments on stories around this topic. Could you explain why that is?

by Jedd 9y ago

King-Aaron 9y ago
I don't think this adds anything to the discussion except for a facetious tone. The OP explained exactly why he doesn't like reading the comments literally in the next breath from what you selectively quoted.
- Jedd 9y ago
  Not being facetious. I can't see the explanation you say exists. I suspect that there's a missing qualifier to parent's comment --something like 'from people who haven't lived what I have lived' -- but absent that it sounds like other people's experiences are of no or negative value.
  - King-Aaron 9y ago
    I find it hard to believe that you are unintentionally missing the context behind the original post, but so be it
    - Jedd 9y ago
      As parent post observed in a sibling comment back to me, he/she interpreted the original article at about 180 degrees to how I read it. I'm curious which way you interpreted TFA, as it may inform why you believe I'm missing the point of the parent post.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
kraig911 9y ago
> Could you explain why that is? Easy by the rest of my comment maybe I didn't illustrate it enough but a lot of people share ideas on how to fix it without truly understand it. Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Now saying that once you're screwed you'll never be able to think 'normal' again... c'mon man.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Jedd 9y ago
  > As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Is that really how you interpreted TFA? I read it entirely opposite to that interpretation. It explained why helping those suffering scarcity is necessary and why society needs to revisit attitudes and mechanisms to do so.
  - kraig911 9y ago
    I read the article and yes indeed got the opposite impression. That's what poverty does though.. makes you see the glass half empty perhaps as per the article implies.
- tensor_rank_0 9y ago
  > Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. how does giving up personal wealth fix poverty?
  - kraig911 9y ago
    It's hard to get people out of poverty than enrich people before that happens. It's easier to bring the extremely wealthy down to a certain level to accommodate for those that don't have the ability to get unlimited tries. See perspective:: http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html Wealth and safety nets give families chances where those in poverty can't afford to take. "Move across the country and change jobs or risk dying of starvation with your family in the car because once you got there the job's gone" "Spend all your savings going to college at the expense of your kids when there are no jobs right now" "It'll cost hundreds of thousands for chemotherapy but on average patients with your diagnosis get 3 more years typically of life"... these are called risks. The wealthy get more rewards because they can afford more risks. Most who are in poverty are in poverty because they themselves or their family could not afford the risk. If those who are high lend a hand it could help immensely.

> I hate seeing people's comments on stories around this topic. Could you explain why that is?

by Jedd 9y ago

> I hate seeing people's comments on stories around this topic. Could you explain why that is?

I don't think this adds anything to the discussion except for a facetious tone. The OP explained exactly why he doesn't like reading the comments literally in the next breath from what you selectively quoted.

Jedd 9y ago
Not being facetious. I can't see the explanation you say exists. I suspect that there's a missing qualifier to parent's comment --something like 'from people who haven't lived what I have lived' -- but absent that it sounds like other people's experiences are of no or negative value.
- King-Aaron 9y ago
  I find it hard to believe that you are unintentionally missing the context behind the original post, but so be it
  - Jedd 9y ago
    As parent post observed in a sibling comment back to me, he/she interpreted the original article at about 180 degrees to how I read it. I'm curious which way you interpreted TFA, as it may inform why you believe I'm missing the point of the parent post.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

kraig911 9y ago

> Could you explain why that is? Easy by the rest of my comment maybe I didn't illustrate it enough but a lot of people share ideas on how to fix it without truly understand it. Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Now saying that once you're screwed you'll never be able to think 'normal' again... c'mon man.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Jedd 9y ago
> As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Is that really how you interpreted TFA? I read it entirely opposite to that interpretation. It explained why helping those suffering scarcity is necessary and why society needs to revisit attitudes and mechanisms to do so.
- kraig911 9y ago
  I read the article and yes indeed got the opposite impression. That's what poverty does though.. makes you see the glass half empty perhaps as per the article implies.
tensor_rank_0 9y ago
> Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. how does giving up personal wealth fix poverty?
- kraig911 9y ago
  It's hard to get people out of poverty than enrich people before that happens. It's easier to bring the extremely wealthy down to a certain level to accommodate for those that don't have the ability to get unlimited tries. See perspective:: http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html Wealth and safety nets give families chances where those in poverty can't afford to take. "Move across the country and change jobs or risk dying of starvation with your family in the car because once you got there the job's gone" "Spend all your savings going to college at the expense of your kids when there are no jobs right now" "It'll cost hundreds of thousands for chemotherapy but on average patients with your diagnosis get 3 more years typically of life"... these are called risks. The wealthy get more rewards because they can afford more risks. Most who are in poverty are in poverty because they themselves or their family could not afford the risk. If those who are high lend a hand it could help immensely.