4 ms·

> Are you in the US? Especially since the story is from someone living in the US? I live in France, where gaz is more expensive, and jobs are harder to get. I

> Are you in the US? Especially since the story is from someone living in the US? I live in France, where gaz is more expensive, and jobs are harder to get. I traveled to the US, I got american friends. I don't think my comparison in unfair. > You get very few job interviews if you don't have a phone or internet connection (which your phone can help you with). As I said before, you got your friends with phones and internet connection. You can get free internet connection in many places anyway, and use phone box. But you do realize people had job before we had cellphones and internet ? Use your social skills. We are a human society, we are supposed to help each others. You are not alone. > Yeah, why doesn't everyone just pack up and move to a strange city with no guarantee of a job Yes you can. It's not the big deal everybody says it is. I changed countried. I changed language. Again, it beats staying in a place you can't afford. This idea you should die where you are born is not sane. > if you can even find one with a better transit system (if you have money for that transit system in the first place) or a bike (if you have money for a bike) You are talking extrem case. If you can afford 2 kids but not a $20 second hand bike (i Had many), you choose a very, very difficult life. The lady here has TWO kids. You can say she didn't choose the first one, but the second ? > or walking (if your job prospects are good enough that you can walk to your job - _if_ you can walk in the first place). Again, extrem case. Be honest, most people in debt are not legless. > And no, accidental kids are not a good excuse when you got condom, pills, emergency pills and eventually abvortion. My GF had an abvortion once. It was terrible. Still better than having a family in distress. > Ignoring what happens to people that had kids before they had any problems... Again, you chose to have kids without creating any kind of buffer in case you have problems. It should not be done. People have kids like it's the "ok thing to do when you are in your 2O'". No, it's not. We are overpopulated, times are hard. Don't make kids until you are sure you can sustain them in the next 20 years, including if you have problems. Your society don't need more kids. Kids are a luxury. I understand you want to have them, but if you do, then get in trouble, you are responsible. > Because we don't also have a reproductive health crisis with Republicans trying to do away with abortions and very, very expensive condoms, pills, and emergency pills? Try is the proper word here. Cause last time I check, you can get condom for free very easily in any city. > Do you know how much that costs? The time? The actual money? Plan B is around $50. Yes, and it's not supposed to happens often. Twice in your life, $100. If more, again, you are responsible. I think $100 on 20 years is ok. > Pills (if they even work for you, which they don't for many women) can skyrocket even with insurance - and often they require a doctor's visit too which costs even more. Yes, that's expensive in the US and not in france. Goes for condom. > Condoms? Free if you can find a place that has them for free, which is the difficult part. Difficult ? Try most universities. Done. > Abortion? Don't even get me started on the timing and money required for that. It happens once in a while to one out 100 persons. Provided it happens to, and you already got not enough money to pay for it, and you have nothing you can save on in the 3 month you got to deal with it (it's starting to be some kind of bad luck, but let'ts play with the idea).You got 3 months to deal with it and find the money. You got help, programs, friends, associations. It's true it's harder, but you can do it. You are responsible for it. And again, you are picking extrem case. When I had the abvortion with my GF, she was an illegal immigrant with no job nor money and I was a broke from the mali war. We dealt with it. Stop finding excuses for everything. > Yes, people are responsible for their debts. That doesn't mean we treat them like shit, I don't. Saying "you are responsible for that" is not treating them like shit. Not careing is not treating them like shit. I just speak my mind about what I think of this situation. I think it's a human thing to do. > and that doesn't mean we can't have some kind of safety net/help for them. Indeed. Society should be organised to prevent this to happend, then help when it failed. It's not incompatible with my personnal feeling about it as an individual. > Everyone fucks up at some point or another, or shit happens. It's just easier for more privileged people to deal with that without losing everything they have. I think all the poeple that downvoted my were more privileged that I was. > This may be a very American problem, but hahahaha. Have you tried going without anything but the bare minimum to pay off $xx,xxx in medical bills - if you're lucky - after negotiating it down? One single relatively minor health problem/accident - or a major one with decent insurance - might be doable. Good luck with anything else though. Man, I had malaria in Africa without health insurance. Don't even try, you can't compare. > My middle class father is probably currently googling to figure out how to divorce my mother because his medical bills have risen in the past year despite being on Medicare+the best supplemental insurance on the market. How did he get that medical bill ? Accident ? Disease ? How much responsible of his health is he ? If he is not, how statistically likely his situation can apply to people in general ?but < Chew on that. What now, staying with his caring partner of decades and leaving her, me+my partner, and future grandkids an inheritance that isn't in the negatives is a privilege now? We as a society won't be better off continuing this kind of bullshit. Quite the contrary. As long as people don't realize consomming, having kids and living the life we live is not a good bet on the future, society will be in trouble. I'm not against helping people. I want people to take responsibility for their situtation. You are not a aids infected legless orphan in Senegal.

mercer 12y ago
> I live in France, where gaz is more expensive, and jobs are harder to get. I traveled to the US, I got american friends. I don't think my comparison in unfair. It is unfair. France, and Europe in general, is completely different when it comes to public transport. France also happens to have a much, much more solid 'social infrastructure' for those who are poor. Surely you understand that especially when we talk about poverty, 'socialist' France is very different from the USA? > As I said before, you got your friends with phones and internet connection. You can get free internet connection in many places anyway, and use phone box. But you do realize people had job before we had cellphones and internet ? Some people, especially among the poor don't really have friends (or no 'active' or nearby ones). Many places don't have phone boxes or free internet. And cellphones and internet changed a lot of things, so comparing our current world to a pre-internet, pre-cellphone world doesn't really make sense. > Use your social skills. We are a human society, we are supposed to help each others. You are not alone. Sadly, many people are alone. And social skills are partly acquired and perhaps even, to a degree, a luxury. I've worked jobs with people who were so busy that they didn't have time to practice their social skills or maintain friendships. In fact, the article touches on this too! > Yes you can. It's not the big deal everybody says it is. I changed countried. I changed language. Again, it beats staying in a place you can't afford. This idea you should die where you are born is not sane. Again, you're applying your personal experience to others. That's unavoidable to a degree, but assigning judgment based on personal experience is, in my view, one of the primary causes of suffering in the world. If what you're saying is true, the only conclusion is that you are a smart, crafty person and all those people who 'choose' to live in favelas or poor areas are idiots. Surely you don't really believe that? > Again, extrem case. Be honest, most people in debt are not legless. I've spent some time in areas where walking is outright dangerous, and walking to the nearest 'job' location would take about half a day. This it not uncommon in the USA. Nobody would hire you in such a situation. > Again, you chose to have kids without creating any kind of buffer in case you have problems. It should not be done. People have kids like it's the "ok thing to do when you are in your 2O'". No, it's not. We are overpopulated, times are hard. Don't make kids until you are sure you can sustain them in the next 20 years, including if you have problems. Your society don't need more kids. Kids are a luxury. I understand you want to have them, but if you do, then get in trouble, you are responsible. I agree in the abstract, but even just consider people who are born and raised in a setting where having kids is considered a 'duty' of sorts, which is pretty common. You can blame their environment or belief system, but can you blame them for not having the means, time, capacity, or influential people who make them change their beliefs? > > Condoms? Free if you can find a place that has them for free, which is the difficult part. > Difficult ? Try most universities. Done. Did you even read the article? > Indeed. Society should be organised to prevent this to happend, then help when it failed. It's not incompatible with my personnal feeling about it as an individual. That's fair enough (seriously). I just hope you're open to the idea that perhaps you might be wrong in your assessment. Because, honestly, most of what you say scares me, as I think beliefs like yours play a significant role in the ever-increasing hardness, selfishness, and smugness of society in regards its weakest members. I'm not saying you play an active role in this, don't get me wrong, but beliefs like the ones you express seem very harmful to me (even if they were true, and I don't think they are). > I think all the poeple that downvoted my were more privileged that I was. I think you should not assume such things. > I'm not against helping people. I want people to take responsibility for their situtation. You are not a aids infected legless orphan in Senegal. And you are not the standard by which we judge everyone else. It is a good thing that we don't have legless aids-infected orphans 'here'. And the reason why we don't have those is not because our legless, aids-infected orphans or their parents have chosen to better themselves. The reason why we don't have those is in part because we realize that people are not in full control of their situation, and through education, social 'security' (of various types) and such, we can improve things. Suffering is a relative thing. I do not want to diminish your hardships, but I also don't see the point in judging the poor in our society based on the level of poverty in other societies. Let me switch gears for a bit, as I think I'm not too interested in further discussing these specifics. We might just disagree on them, and it might not be all that productive to continue down this line. The main reason I'm engaging with you is that I'm honestly curious why you feel a strong need to react against this article in the first place. Isn't it a good thing that we're trying to understand the difficulties and plight of the poor in our society? Isn't that generally a benefit? Shouldn't we do more of that? You even seem to agree that a big part of the problem is structural and societal, rather than personal. I really mean it when I say that I'd like to understand. Personally, I've noticed that spending time 'immersed' in poverty has often caused me to actually dislike the poor. To feel that they're stupid. Perhaps that is why you feel this way, or perhaps not. But what I also noticed is that as I spent more time away from outright poverty and the 'stupidity' that seems to be part of it, my views would mellow a bit more, and as I studied the underlying reasons and mechanisms my sympathy would come back. Yes, a lot of poor people do infuriatingly stupid things. In fact, my time among 'the poor' has made me often feel like I'm dealing with particularly stubbornly stupid children. And the fact that there is no 'inherent' sympathy (by blood or other ties) makes is difficult to deal with that sometimes. But I try my hardest these days to realize that if it is in fact true that these poor are 'grown children', then it should lead me to sympathize more, not less. And it makes me respect all the more people who do manage to climb out of poverty despite this fact. And it makes me respect people who try to change things both up close and from a distance. Because dear lord is it easier to sympathize with the poor if you don't have to be around them! But that said, the one thing that I think is not really a good idea in any way, is to openly rail against children for being children. That seems rather pointless. (not that I'm saying the poor are 'stubborn, stupid, children', by the way. I don't know if they are, and I think it's mostly irrelevant to our sympathies)

mercer 12y ago

> I live in France, where gaz is more expensive, and jobs are harder to get. I traveled to the US, I got american friends. I don't think my comparison in unfair. It is unfair. France, and Europe in general, is completely different when it comes to public transport. France also happens to have a much, much more solid 'social infrastructure' for those who are poor. Surely you understand that especially when we talk about poverty, 'socialist' France is very different from the USA? > As I said before, you got your friends with phones and internet connection. You can get free internet connection in many places anyway, and use phone box. But you do realize people had job before we had cellphones and internet ? Some people, especially among the poor don't really have friends (or no 'active' or nearby ones). Many places don't have phone boxes or free internet. And cellphones and internet changed a lot of things, so comparing our current world to a pre-internet, pre-cellphone world doesn't really make sense. > Use your social skills. We are a human society, we are supposed to help each others. You are not alone. Sadly, many people are alone. And social skills are partly acquired and perhaps even, to a degree, a luxury. I've worked jobs with people who were so busy that they didn't have time to practice their social skills or maintain friendships. In fact, the article touches on this too! > Yes you can. It's not the big deal everybody says it is. I changed countried. I changed language. Again, it beats staying in a place you can't afford. This idea you should die where you are born is not sane. Again, you're applying your personal experience to others. That's unavoidable to a degree, but assigning judgment based on personal experience is, in my view, one of the primary causes of suffering in the world. If what you're saying is true, the only conclusion is that you are a smart, crafty person and all those people who 'choose' to live in favelas or poor areas are idiots. Surely you don't really believe that? > Again, extrem case. Be honest, most people in debt are not legless. I've spent some time in areas where walking is outright dangerous, and walking to the nearest 'job' location would take about half a day. This it not uncommon in the USA. Nobody would hire you in such a situation. > Again, you chose to have kids without creating any kind of buffer in case you have problems. It should not be done. People have kids like it's the "ok thing to do when you are in your 2O'". No, it's not. We are overpopulated, times are hard. Don't make kids until you are sure you can sustain them in the next 20 years, including if you have problems. Your society don't need more kids. Kids are a luxury. I understand you want to have them, but if you do, then get in trouble, you are responsible. I agree in the abstract, but even just consider people who are born and raised in a setting where having kids is considered a 'duty' of sorts, which is pretty common. You can blame their environment or belief system, but can you blame them for not having the means, time, capacity, or influential people who make them change their beliefs? > > Condoms? Free if you can find a place that has them for free, which is the difficult part. > Difficult ? Try most universities. Done. Did you even read the article? > Indeed. Society should be organised to prevent this to happend, then help when it failed. It's not incompatible with my personnal feeling about it as an individual. That's fair enough (seriously). I just hope you're open to the idea that perhaps you might be wrong in your assessment. Because, honestly, most of what you say scares me, as I think beliefs like yours play a significant role in the ever-increasing hardness, selfishness, and smugness of society in regards its weakest members. I'm not saying you play an active role in this, don't get me wrong, but beliefs like the ones you express seem very harmful to me (even if they were true, and I don't think they are). > I think all the poeple that downvoted my were more privileged that I was. I think you should not assume such things. > I'm not against helping people. I want people to take responsibility for their situtation. You are not a aids infected legless orphan in Senegal. And you are not the standard by which we judge everyone else. It is a good thing that we don't have legless aids-infected orphans 'here'. And the reason why we don't have those is not because our legless, aids-infected orphans or their parents have chosen to better themselves. The reason why we don't have those is in part because we realize that people are not in full control of their situation, and through education, social 'security' (of various types) and such, we can improve things. Suffering is a relative thing. I do not want to diminish your hardships, but I also don't see the point in judging the poor in our society based on the level of poverty in other societies. Let me switch gears for a bit, as I think I'm not too interested in further discussing these specifics. We might just disagree on them, and it might not be all that productive to continue down this line. The main reason I'm engaging with you is that I'm honestly curious why you feel a strong need to react against this article in the first place. Isn't it a good thing that we're trying to understand the difficulties and plight of the poor in our society? Isn't that generally a benefit? Shouldn't we do more of that? You even seem to agree that a big part of the problem is structural and societal, rather than personal. I really mean it when I say that I'd like to understand. Personally, I've noticed that spending time 'immersed' in poverty has often caused me to actually dislike the poor. To feel that they're stupid. Perhaps that is why you feel this way, or perhaps not. But what I also noticed is that as I spent more time away from outright poverty and the 'stupidity' that seems to be part of it, my views would mellow a bit more, and as I studied the underlying reasons and mechanisms my sympathy would come back. Yes, a lot of poor people do infuriatingly stupid things. In fact, my time among 'the poor' has made me often feel like I'm dealing with particularly stubbornly stupid children. And the fact that there is no 'inherent' sympathy (by blood or other ties) makes is difficult to deal with that sometimes. But I try my hardest these days to realize that if it is in fact true that these poor are 'grown children', then it should lead me to sympathize more, not less. And it makes me respect all the more people who do manage to climb out of poverty despite this fact. And it makes me respect people who try to change things both up close and from a distance. Because dear lord is it easier to sympathize with the poor if you don't have to be around them! But that said, the one thing that I think is not really a good idea in any way, is to openly rail against children for being children. That seems rather pointless. (not that I'm saying the poor are 'stubborn, stupid, children', by the way. I don't know if they are, and I think it's mostly irrelevant to our sympathies)