3 ms·

Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Perhaps he already did some research on the matter and that's why

by zo1 12y ago

Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Perhaps he already did some research on the matter and that's why he's come to the conclusion he wrote above? In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor, yet you also didn't provide any research or reference (which you accuse the OP of not doing either). I'm not saying you are, but it's equally likely (from our point of view, assuming it's unbiased) to think that you're also rationalizing your view of the poor to match your own position.

pessimizer 12y ago
>In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works. edit: >Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Because there's nothing in this ancient, stereotypical rant of the comfortable since antiquity that gives me the indication that I have something to learn about the poor from the person who happens to be reciting it in this thread. I've been poor, and I know poor. If there are some statistics that tell me that I've just accidentally been in a bubble of the wonderful, hardworking, generous, and thoughtful poor (mixed with a few spoilers) I'm open to it and happy to read it.
- zo1 12y ago
  >"In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works." And if I had no prior-opinion OR evidence on unicorns in the South Pole, I'd equally be skeptical of your claims that there aren't any, as I'd be of the guy that claims there are. I'd ask you both for some basic stats/research on the matter, which is what I tried to point out.
  - dkhenry 12y ago
    Except in this case we have clear evidence for one side ( which is now provided ), but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place.
    - zo1 12y ago
      >"but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place." Agreed, especially if you have a more controversial viewpoint. I know that all too well.
dkhenry 12y ago
Because its a lot easier for people to disagree without doing research. Much like I was accused of not looking at the numbers and rationalizing to make myself feel good thats exactly what everyone does. I can't say I have done scientific grade research, but being in the trenches of this epidemic I can only go off what I see around me. I deal with these people on a daily basis, and I deal with their kids. However if you want numbers just go look at the census data. Here is an analysis by kidscount (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/868,867,133,38,35/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-...) and I can tell you from my experience that number is low. There are many other families where they are not "single" parents, but the second adult is just a boyfriend who may or may not be the father of the children in question.
- ssmoot 12y ago
  That doesn't answer the question. Not having parents to pay for college isn't a "poor choice". Since finances are the leading cause of divorce, it would be reasonable to expect that lower income families have more single-parent homes. It's frankly immoral to consider marriage (and divorce) a luxury the poor are somehow less deserving of. If I were to get a divorce, it wouldn't ruin me. I have seen a number of middle class kids make "poor choices" that would have devastated a poor family. The children of poor families don't "fail upwards" in the way that upper middle class kids do. I worked very hard to achieve what I have. But I recognize that without the help of family who could afford to help, the work alone would not have been enough. I've found a healthy dose of success in spite of some poor choices. Your POV is typical of people who've had the luxury of not having to depend on a two hour bus commute to get to a job that offers no vacation hours. Where every trivial emergency is one that hits you twice: Once to pay for the event itself, and once for the lost work hours. It's a position of privilege.
  - dkhenry 12y ago
    So for someone who's first complaint was I was living in a magical world. You are clearly not in touch with reality. You mention divorce and college. 1. a very low percentage of minorities even get married. Meaning divorce is a statistical outlier [http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-america...] 2. Low income teens are likely to get pregnant while in high school. This has nothing to do with mommy and daddy not being able to pay for college and them getting stuck in a dead end job while trying to raise a family. These kids are dropping out of school and having kids before any prospect of a job is on the table. Then they have to deal with the fact that they have kids and it limits their choices ( can I go to school and work two jobs while raising kids ? )[http://www.nber.org/papers/w17965.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w17965.pdf] Yeah right some kids can get away with more poor choices but that doesn't mean they are not poor choices, and while I don't think there is a good body of evidence for this exact situation, even kids who are middle or upper middle class who have kids early in life and have their parents who can cover for them, their kids are statistically likely to make the same poor choices and the parents are not as likely to be able to support them. So the first generation might be able to "fail upwards" but the second generation which is statistically likely to fail as well will be much less likely to do the same thing.

by zo1 12y ago

pessimizer 12y ago

>In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works. edit: >Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Because there's nothing in this ancient, stereotypical rant of the comfortable since antiquity that gives me the indication that I have something to learn about the poor from the person who happens to be reciting it in this thread. I've been poor, and I know poor. If there are some statistics that tell me that I've just accidentally been in a bubble of the wonderful, hardworking, generous, and thoughtful poor (mixed with a few spoilers) I'm open to it and happy to read it.

zo1 12y ago
>"In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works." And if I had no prior-opinion OR evidence on unicorns in the South Pole, I'd equally be skeptical of your claims that there aren't any, as I'd be of the guy that claims there are. I'd ask you both for some basic stats/research on the matter, which is what I tried to point out.
- dkhenry 12y ago
  Except in this case we have clear evidence for one side ( which is now provided ), but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place.
  - zo1 12y ago
    >"but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place." Agreed, especially if you have a more controversial viewpoint. I know that all too well.

dkhenry 12y ago

Because its a lot easier for people to disagree without doing research. Much like I was accused of not looking at the numbers and rationalizing to make myself feel good thats exactly what everyone does. I can't say I have done scientific grade research, but being in the trenches of this epidemic I can only go off what I see around me. I deal with these people on a daily basis, and I deal with their kids. However if you want numbers just go look at the census data. Here is an analysis by kidscount (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/868,867,133,38,35/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-...) and I can tell you from my experience that number is low. There are many other families where they are not "single" parents, but the second adult is just a boyfriend who may or may not be the father of the children in question.

ssmoot 12y ago
That doesn't answer the question. Not having parents to pay for college isn't a "poor choice". Since finances are the leading cause of divorce, it would be reasonable to expect that lower income families have more single-parent homes. It's frankly immoral to consider marriage (and divorce) a luxury the poor are somehow less deserving of. If I were to get a divorce, it wouldn't ruin me. I have seen a number of middle class kids make "poor choices" that would have devastated a poor family. The children of poor families don't "fail upwards" in the way that upper middle class kids do. I worked very hard to achieve what I have. But I recognize that without the help of family who could afford to help, the work alone would not have been enough. I've found a healthy dose of success in spite of some poor choices. Your POV is typical of people who've had the luxury of not having to depend on a two hour bus commute to get to a job that offers no vacation hours. Where every trivial emergency is one that hits you twice: Once to pay for the event itself, and once for the lost work hours. It's a position of privilege.
- dkhenry 12y ago
  So for someone who's first complaint was I was living in a magical world. You are clearly not in touch with reality. You mention divorce and college. 1. a very low percentage of minorities even get married. Meaning divorce is a statistical outlier [http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-america...] 2. Low income teens are likely to get pregnant while in high school. This has nothing to do with mommy and daddy not being able to pay for college and them getting stuck in a dead end job while trying to raise a family. These kids are dropping out of school and having kids before any prospect of a job is on the table. Then they have to deal with the fact that they have kids and it limits their choices ( can I go to school and work two jobs while raising kids ? )[http://www.nber.org/papers/w17965.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w17965.pdf] Yeah right some kids can get away with more poor choices but that doesn't mean they are not poor choices, and while I don't think there is a good body of evidence for this exact situation, even kids who are middle or upper middle class who have kids early in life and have their parents who can cover for them, their kids are statistically likely to make the same poor choices and the parents are not as likely to be able to support them. So the first generation might be able to "fail upwards" but the second generation which is statistically likely to fail as well will be much less likely to do the same thing.