5 ms·
> So Japanese people are doing everything right -- eschewing violence, avoiding drugs, working hard and not having kids out of wedlock. They are following the c
by amthewiz 7y ago
> So Japanese people are doing everything right -- eschewing violence, avoiding drugs, working hard and not having kids out of wedlock. They are following the conservative prescription, as well as or better than any other developed country in the world. And yet still, many of them are poor. This suggests that there is something very wrong with the conservative theory of poverty.
No, the author is confused. There is a big difference between -
- you cannot be poor if you make good choices, and
- you can get out of povery by making good choices
The conservative position is the later. There will be cases where it doesn't work, but it is a sound recommendation in general.
Now, poverty does make it harder to make good choices. So welfare $s should be spent to make that easier, e.g. free food at school helps kids do better at school.
- esailija 7y agoYou say there is a "big difference" but logically they are exactly the same claim. Also, no need to "recommend" making "good choices" any more than you need to recommend breathing.
- ShinTakuya 7y agoNot at all. One is saying that it's possible to get out of poverty by making good choices. One is saying that it's impossible to be in poverty if you make good choices. Subtle but big difference. I disagree with both statements regardless, but there is a difference.
- esailija 7y agoIf "good choices are likely to lift you out of poverty" like OP claims, it logically follows that "you are unlikely to be poor if you make good choices". "There will be cases where it doesn't work" let's say that means 99%/1%. So the statements become "you would have 99% chance to be lifted out of poverty if you made good choices" and therefore "you have 1% chance of being poor if you make good choices". Whether you believe it's 1% or 0% the behavior will be the same. If a smoker gets lung cancer you will blame their smoking everytime even though there was a 5.8% chance that it was not smoking caused so 0% and 5.8% is not any different, why should 0% and 1% be?.
- ShinTakuya 7y agoSure but the statement the original commentor made wasn't that it was "unlikely" for you to be poor. He said "cannot". What you mention in your comment is logical, but you moved the goalposts by using the word "unlikely". Can and cannot are vastly different words to likely and unlikely. Put simply, one claims it's impossible to be poor if you do X. The other claims it's possible to be poor but you have a better chance of not being poor if you do X.
- esailija 7y agoYes in a vacuum and out of context, those are vastly different words with different meanings. That's how the original commentator is trying to fool you who stop at that without considering the actual implications. For this context in reality "unlikely" and "impossible" are the same thing, barely a distinction definitely without a difference. It makes absolutely no concrete difference. But you ignored this point of my comment.
- ShinTakuya 7y agoNo, you chose to ignore the word choice of the original comment to fit your own argument. Note that in the comment chain I've repeatedly said that I actually support your viewpoint. I just don't support the means by which you argued it.
- esailija 7y agoHow would you argue for it then? Let's take a similar "defense" in some unrelated scenario that we have some distance from. Let's say someone demonstrated that they are a xenophobe, inevitably someone will call them "racist" because it carries more rhetorical weight and is effectively the same thing (using arbitrary unrelated quality about someone to justify discrimination). Now their "defense" will be that "no no, I am a xenophobe not a racist". How do you effectively convey that this is a bullshit defense and the connotations of racist apply equally? Without going into nuance where you will lose most people... :(
- 7y ago