Who's responsibility?

Brenna wrote: ...
And the "them vs us" mentality does nothing other than create bitterness and anger and an inability to see through to the actual problem.

The whole reply was great and the examination far greater, but in this case it is I against them.
I don't like them.
I envy their success. deal?

The rich people are philanthropists thats why the get richer every second. And sadly it wasn't anyone (not even one) to defend the poor from discriminating.

Exarchias wrote:

Brenna wrote: ...
And the "them vs us" mentality does nothing other than create bitterness and anger and an inability to see through to the actual problem.

The whole reply was great and the examination far greater, but in this case it is I against them.
I don't like them.
I envy their success. deal?

The rich people are philanthropists thats why the get richer every second. And sadly it wasn't anyone (not even one) to defend the poor from discriminating.

you also mentioned

Exarchias wrote:
You can't convince me for anything. So don't try.

So what youre saying is that you have decided on what your world view will be and perspective or even truth is irrelevant?


The poor get an extremely unfair deal. The system is weighted against them. Most certainly so. But it will not change until the conversation starts to be held in a manner that is objective, and without the emotional attachment of "they did this to us. its not fair". Because that wont get anyone anywhere.

Brenna wrote:

Exarchias wrote:

Brenna wrote: ...
And the "them vs us" mentality does nothing other than create bitterness and anger and an inability to see through to the actual problem.

The whole reply was great and the examination far greater, but in this case it is I against them.
I don't like them.
I envy their success. deal?

The rich people are philanthropists thats why the get richer every second. And sadly it wasn't anyone (not even one) to defend the poor from discriminating.

you also mentioned

Exarchias wrote:
You can't convince me for anything. So don't try.

So what youre saying is that you have decided on what your world view will be and perspective or even truth is irrelevant?


The poor get an extremely unfair deal. The system is weighted against them. Most certainly so. But it will not change until the conversation starts to be held in a manner that is objective, and without the emotional attachment of "they did this to us. its not fair". Because that wont get anyone anywhere.

The whole reaction was trolling against the deep, deep love that was expressed towards the rich, and the very anti poor side of this discussion.
Don't take me wrong but my very first reply about the rich was polite as hell. This desperate need to save the "poor" rich from the evil me who i had the arrogance not to like them, make me feel bit sick so please don't get offended if i wish to cut off this discussion.
What? I don't like Mister Gates? Mr Gates?
No! i don't like him.
Take it or leave it.

Exarchias wrote: The whole reaction was trolling against the deep, deep love that was expressed towards the rich, and the very anti poor side of this discussion.
Don't take me wrong but my very first reply about the rich was polite as hell. This desperate need to save the "poor" rich from the evil me who i had the arrogance not to like them, make me feel bit sick so please don't get offended if i wish to cut off this discussion.
What? I don't like Mister Gates? Mr Gates?
No! i don't like him.
Take it or leave it.

Deep deep love? lol. As the expression goes, I am responsible for what I say, not for how you interpret it. And you have clearly misunderstood.

I have no interest in the "plight (lol) rich. I am however interested in the fact that whenever the conversation about inequality comes up, there is always "bashing" of one side or another. Some like to complain that the rich are out to get them, others like to complain that the poor are simply lazy.

Neither argument shows a complete or even vaguely true picture. Nor goes anywhere near the root of the problem.


Also, trolling isnt very conducive to conversation.

Brenna wrote:

Exarchias wrote: The whole reaction was trolling against the deep, deep love that was expressed towards the rich, and the very anti poor side of this discussion.
Don't take me wrong but my very first reply about the rich was polite as hell. This desperate need to save the "poor" rich from the evil me who i had the arrogance not to like them, make me feel bit sick so please don't get offended if i wish to cut off this discussion.
What? I don't like Mister Gates? Mr Gates?
No! i don't like him.
Take it or leave it.

Deep deep love? lol. As the expression goes, I am responsible for what I say, not for how you interpret it. And you have clearly misunderstood.

I have no interest in the "plight (lol) rich. I am however interested in the fact that whenever the conversation about inequality comes up, there is always "bashing" of one side or another. Some like to complain that the rich are out to get them, others like to complain that the poor are simply lazy.

Neither argument shows a complete or even vaguely true picture. Nor goes anywhere near the root of the problem.


Also, trolling isnt very conducive to conversation.

After a specific point it wasn't even conversation.

Brenna, your post on the 2nd page was simply beautiful.

Exarchias, so you have your mind made up? That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how unfair or twist it is.

Though, part of being a Jedi, a fundamental part, is to have an open mind, to seek knowledge, and destroy ignorance. How can a person successfully do that when a person refuses to even look, think, or attempt to see another side of the aisle, and attempt to see it from the opposing view point.?

Your smile stole my heart but i will not change opinion for anything.
Seriously i wish you both a nice night.
Please leave me be now.

Exarchias wrote: After a specific point it wasn't even conversation.

So youre right it wasnt.

But its an interesting discussion and even though you arent interested in actually exploring it, im sure others would so...

back to the topic.

I attended a series of lectures a few years ago on the concept of social justice and was introduced there to the idea of the veil of ignorance. Essentially, if you had no idea which side of the line you would be born into, how would you set up a society?

The problem with responsibility is that people equate it with fault. Its not a case of whos fault is it that there are people who are less privileged, but rather, whose responsibility is it to ensure they are cared for.

To be honest, I dont know. The line between personal and social responsibility is blurry at best. But i think it comes down to choices.

I remember serving people food at the city mission a few years ago, and found myself unreasonably angry when serving a woman who had three small children, none of which even wore shoes, while the father leaned up against a wall with a box of beer, smoking. To spend what little money his family had on that was his choice. Should I be responsibly for that choice? No, I dont believe so. Did I stand there and serve them dinner and send them away with a box of food stuff and some things for the little ones? Yes.

Other peoples choices and circumstances are not my responsibility. But its IS my responsibility to help where I can when people are in need.

But sometimes, helping someone also means not enabling them.

To return to the OP.

This is a very tough thing. My girlfriend works at a facility (I'm in the US btw) where they help mentally handicapped people get and perform jobs. Depending on the person they may be jobs out in the "real world" or jobs like shredding documents that are brought to their facility for that very purpose. Those people also perform the cooking, cleaning, filing, and other jobs required to maintain the facility itself to try and make it more self-sufficient. I think that this is more along the lines of how things should work. They are, however, subject to funding some of which is from the government.

Jestor wrote: I don't think charity is a dirty word, and if the government can afford it, more power to them...

But the US cannot, as shown by our increasing debt...

The US government has spent approximately $816 billion on the war in Iraq since 2003. That was enough money to give every college student in the US a 4-year scholarship to their state universities, as in New York University, the University of Massachusetts, etc. We’ve also spent about $726 billion on the war in Afghanistan since 2001. That's enough for all of them to get Master's degrees as well. Now, if any president ever went to congress and said, "I'd like almost $2 trillion to fund Master's degrees for every college student in America," that president would get laughed out of office. But due to fear and anger as a result of a very serious tragedy, people jumped at spending that money on war. Fear, pain, anger, regret...these things are never the basis of good decision making. Maybe we could afford these "charities" like money for basic living expenses for the severely disabled if we made decisions with our money based on compassion, fellowship, and trust.

There have been a number of sites and independent institutions to tally up all the things the US could have done with the money we spent on wars. You can just Google it. There's also a neat little paperback called What We Could Have Done With the Money: 50 Ways to Spend the Trillion Dollars We've Spent on Iraq

I know some people are of the opinion that the government just shouldn't get involved and "these things" should be left up to private institutions and businesses. That logic is flawed because unless a person already has hundreds of billions of dollars to set up and maintain these programs and out of some deeply held altruistic belief that it is their responsibility to take care of all these people forever, nobody is going to spend their hard earned money trying to set up an institution to handle all these people because there's no money in it. And because there's no money in it there's no way to keep it running unless they get donations (which aren't going to amount to enough to take care of all these people) or...drum roll please...government subsidies. So why don't billionaires do this stuff? Well, they do. It's not enough.

http://philanthropy.com/article/A-Look-at-the-50-Most-Generous/144529/#p50_list

Maybe you (not an individual, just the general you) just don't like the idea of the government handling "these things" but it's their job, not Bill Gates'.

We have enough prisons to maintain the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world, but we can't build enough institutions to care for people who can't take care of themselves? There's just something wrong with a culture that does nothing to change that.