[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Mastrap:


Exept if you're happen to be black, hispanic or of native American background of course. Or working for minimum wage cleaning hospitals. Or working at Burger King. Washing dishes in a restaurant. Have you got any idea about poverty levels in the western world?

OK, then I won't waste my time with the stories of the hundreds of self made people in this country.

You know what? I have friends that washed dishes and worked at fast food restaurants. Of course they did it on their way to getting a better education so that they could get a better job!

What do you expect? Are we just supposed to hand out money to everyone because, boo hoo, they don't want to have to work so hard for it?

BTW, I'm willing to bet the poverty levels in this country are much better than the communist countries that seem to be the model for what you and deekay1 are arguing for.

You have a great way of pointing out problems, but no solutions other than "give money to me."

[deekay1]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yeah, I conspired with the government and the press to move the unemployment rate down to fit my argument.

read lerk's post! understand it! the "unemployment rate" does not address some very critical issues that need to be taken into account!

or as twain put it: there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics!

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

Meanwhile, you continue to spout empty rhetoric with no cited facts.

no. i'm interperting your "facts". it's called asking questions and critical thinking. something that usually doesn't go over very well with the right wing agenda.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

You mock me, yet do you have a single fact that backs up your theory that more than 90% of Americans are unemployed and millions of them are forced into slave-like conditions?

okay, since you asked for it, i'll look up somehting, and you are more than welcome to critizise that as well.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by deekay1:
oh, here we go with that "opportunity" thing again.

Yeah, that pesky opportunity thing.

I just happen to think that people have more of a chance of making it here than anywhere else.

What do you suggest we do, instead of offering this idea of opportunity? Do you have any real ideas or do you just bitch and moan alot?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:


Yeah, I conspired with the government and the press to move the unemployment rate down to fit my argument.

well, administrations have, in the past, manipulated the way the unemployment percentage was determined to make it appear more palatable to voters. One such "adjustment" changed the unemployment percentage from something like 11% to 6.5% overnight, just because they decided to not include certain groups of people (this is where people without jobs but who've run out of benefits comes in)
You act as if the unemployment rate is a sacrosanct entity, yet its just another government statistic which can mean different things, depending on how you collate or present the information. And whoever is in charge gets to decide that.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Meanwhile, you continue to spout empty rhetoric with no cited facts.

You mock me, yet do you have a single fact that backs up your theory that more than 90% of Americans are unemployed and millions of them are forced into slave-like conditions?

Not sure that was deekay's contention...unless you've committed a severe typo. And your cited fact was based on math that is imperfect, as I pointed out, and you considered that blasting you. so...in my book, you've not really cited any facts, yourself, just what you consider an accurate accounting based on government manipulated accounting and subtracting that from the whole.

My only point is that statistics (and especially government statistics) are highly subjective. Much depends on what the criteria is and who sets that criteria.

I only bring it up because I do newspaper graphics for a living, so I'm somewhat familiar with them.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:


OK, then I won't waste my time with the stories of the hundreds of self made people in this country.

You know what? I have friends that washed dishes and worked at fast food restaurants. Of course they did it on their way to getting a better education so that they could get a better job!

What do you expect? Are we just supposed to hand out money to everyone because, boo hoo, they don't want to have to work so hard for it?

BTW, I'm willing to bet the poverty levels in this country are much better than the communist countries that seem to be the model for what you and deekay1 are arguing for.

You have a great way of pointing out problems, but no solutions other than "give money to me."

Who took the jam out of your doughnut then? Where did I argeu in favour of communism?

And, for your information, I am "self-made" myself. Meaning I worked for everything I've achieved. Meaning I too come from rather humble origins.

The difference between you and me is that I realise that

a: not everyone has been as lucky as I have been and

b: that my good luck (so far) creates an obligation towards those of lesser fortune.

I daresay that if your grandfather owned a department store - and if your father didn't muck it all up - you personally probably come from a rather priviledged background. if that is so you've got no business at all to judge those who don't.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:


Exept if you're happen to be black, hispanic or of native American background of course. Or working for minimum wage cleaning hospitals. Or working at Burger King. Washing dishes in a restaurant. Have you got any idea about poverty levels in the western world?

Come on. You're making a lot of valid points but the America you're describing there just doesn't exist. Never did outside schmaltzy 50's tv movies.

True, but Deekay's vision of America isn't accurate either. People aren't quite as poverty-stricken as he seems to like to think.

The nation's poverty rate dropped from 11.8 percent in 1999 to 11.3
percent in 2000 -- virtually matching the record low set in 1973 -- while
real median household income ($42,148 in 2000) did not change from the
1999 level, which was the highest ever recorded. . . .

Census Bureau

If you want to break it down by race then according to the same abstract, the median income in the 2000 census for blacks was $30,439. For Hispanics, it was $33,447. For Non-Hispanic Whites it was $45,904, and for Asians and Pacific Islanders it was $55,521.

This is not the land of milk and honey, but neither is this a land of grinding poverty.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I come from a family that built themselves up from literally nothing. My grandfather was born on a homestead with 8 brothers and sisters and eventually retired owning a department store that he passed on to his sons. He wasn't given any better opportunity. He EARNED every cent he made and never cheated anyone. And his employees loved him, and he rewarded them with good pay and a good place to work.

That's a great story. I'm sure you're proud of your family, and rightly so.

The argument that liberals would make is that there are many people that didn't do a damn thing to become rich except choose the right parents to be born to, and Republican policies increase concentration of wealth and decrease social mobility.

Just for fun, let's compare the W. story to the Clinton story. The Clintons of this world prove the American Dream - they are born to poor families, most of their friends are still in trailer parks, but because of a combination of hard work and natural smarts and/or motivation, they make good.

Then there are the W's who by all accounts don't work hard, aren't successful in business by any standard, but still make good because they get by on their family's money and name.

Here's the point: Republican policies make W. stories, not Clinton stories, happen more often. Republicans policies increase concentration of wealth, they don't decrease it.

All this talk about cutting taxes for the wealthy because they earn more is fine, until you see that real earnings by the wealthiest have dramatically increased over the past 20 years or so, while earnings of the lower and middle classes have stagnated or gone down. The estate ("death") tax, which only applies to the very wealthy, is a good example.

Great, everyone loves to pay less taxes. But reducing or eliminating it won't encourage the W's of this world to work hard and make good on their own. Just the opposite!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by deekay1:
no. i'm interperting your "facts". it's called asking questions and critical thinking. something that usually doesn't go over very well with the right wing agenda.

I read your posts. Didn't see too much critical thinking. I just read a bunch of bitching and non-factual statements about slave labor.

I don't have a "right wing" agenda. I just believe in the idea of freedom and responsibility. I guess that doesn't jive too well with your Marxist agenda.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Mastrap:


Exept if you're happen to be black, hispanic or of native American background of course. Or working for minimum wage cleaning hospitals. Or working at Burger King. Washing dishes in a restaurant. Have you got any idea about poverty levels in the western world?

Come on. You're making a lot of valid points but the America you're describing there just doesn't exist. Never did outside schmaltzy 50's tv movies.

Wow. PLEASE enlighten us how no one who is black, hispanic, native American etc. has an opportunity to "...work harder, educate [them]selves further, offer employers unique skills or just come up with creative ways of making money."

If Dave is guilty of a 1950's mentality, yours is like something from the 1920's!

The patronizing attitude toward the above mentioned groups by those that claim to 'care' the most about them the most absolutly astounds me at times.

[Jansar]

That's the problem with left-wingers. They take everything to extremes because they can't live with the fact that they lost the presidential and senate elections.

90% of Americans unemployed? WTF?! (Here's a riddle for ya: Didn't you know that 95% of statistics are made up on the spot?)

[deekay1]

okay, for starters here

more to follow...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deekay1:
okay, for starters here

more to follow...

Oh, wow! Documents from the Fourth International. Now there's an objective source.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by deekay1:
okay, for starters here

more to follow...

Okay, fine, whatever...

But where's the 90%?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I just believe in the idea of freedom and responsibility.

more empty conservative rhetoric...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


True, but Deekay's vision of America isn't accurate either. People aren't quite an poverty-stricken as he seems to like to think.
Census Bureau

If you want to break it down by race then according to the same abstract, the median income in the 2000 census for blacks was $30,439. For Hispanics, it was $33,447. For Non-Hispanic Whites it was $45,904, and for Asians and Pacific Islanders it was $55,521.

This is not the land of milk and honey, but neither is this a land of grinding poverty.

thanks for posting, Simey.

No, in this case, neither side is completely accurate in their view of the economics of the country, but as I've pointed out, government statistics are highly malleable, so I would never claim they are completely accurate, either. I doubt there is actually any way to precisely know without a large percentage for margin of error.
But a percentage point one way or another makes nobody's points here.
I was only replying because many people misunderstand statistics and what they mean.
It's a lonely quest, but it is mine own.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:


Wow. PLEASE enlighten us how no one who is black, hispanic, native American etc. has an opportunity to "...work harder, educate [them]selves further, offer employers unique skills or just come up with creative ways of making money."

If Dave is guilty of a 1950's mentality, yours is like something from the 1920's!

The patronizing attitude toward the above mentioned groups by those that claim to 'care' the most about them the most absolutly astounds me at times.

It's got nothing to do with being patronising. It has got everything to do with numbers. if you're black, hispanic or native Amrican you are more likely to:

live in poverty

go to prison

be murdered

be a single parent

be alcohol or drug dependent

Them's the facts>

This is not a criticism of the ethnic group, it is a criticism of the society we live in. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Edit: Two typos in one word. Wow

[deekay1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh, wow! Documents from the Fourth International. Now there's an objective source.

yeah, just as objective as the washington post i guess...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Jansar:
That's the problem with left-wingers. They take everything to extremes because they can't live with the fact that they lost the presidential and senate elections.

90% of Americans unemployed? WTF?! (Here's a riddle for ya: Didn't you know that 95% of statistics are made up on the spot?)

this is how FUD gets started. Go back in the thread. Spliffdaddy used the term 90% and deekay was questioning that figure. From there, Davessimon kept saying that deekay said "90% unemployed" ...which, unless I've missed it in rereading this thread, deekay didn't say.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Jansar:
But where's the 90%?

wtf? i never claimed that 90% of americans were unemployed!?

i'm just saying there is a F�CK of a lot more to it than simply saying: "we'll 94,5% are employed" so everything is okay!" get it?!

what are the conditions of the employment? what's the duration? are there people that are unemployed, that aren't registered?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


thanks for posting, Simey.

No, in this case, neither side is completely accurate in their view of the economics of the country, but as I've pointed out, government statistics are highly malleable, so I would never claim they are completely accurate, either. I doubt there is actually any way to precisely know without a large percentage for margin of error.
But a percentage point one way or another makes nobody's points here.
I was only replying because many people misunderstand statistics and what they mean.
It's a lonely quest, but it is mine own.

Sure, although census statistics are less malleable than most. It is, after all, the biggest statistical sample there is and the census bureau goes to a lot of trouble to maintain its accuracy.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:




This is not the land of milk and honey, but neither is this a land of grinding poverty.

I am in total agreement with you there. All I am saying that hard labour and determination will not guarantee success.

[daimoni]

.

[Usama's Carcase]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
go to prison
be a single parent
be alcohol or drug dependent

Them's the facts>

most of those look like the result of personal lifestyle choices.

on drugs? Their fault.

in prison? they committed a crime and had their day in court WITH A JURY OF THEIR PEERS, quite likely with many of their own colour.

single parent? most likely because you chose to have sex without a condom or birth control. condoms are .75 cents. there's no excuse. and in the smaller number of cases where the condom failed, then they should get help. Help starts with helping yourself, and chances are that the young woman got pregnant by a guy that isn't going to be a dad, loser that he is.

most people's problems are their own fault. minorities excel every day in America.

Asians are a smaller minority than blacks, yet they often beat out non-hispanic whites in test scores. but asians have faced serious discrimination in America in the past, especially in immigration policies and when building the railroads westward. but they excelled. talking about that would ruin your idiotic theory, however, so we'll just ignore all the cases of minority excellence, and since they have serious problems, we'll blame white america and the government.

you're just making excuses for others' bad behaviour.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Mastrap:



It's got nothing to do with being patronising. It has got everything to do with numbers. if you're black, hispanic or native Amrican you are more likely to:

live in poverty

go to prison

be murdered

be a single parent

be alcohol or drug dependent

Them's the facts>

This is not a criticism of the ethnic group, it is a criticism of the society we live in. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Edit: Two typos in one word. Wow

Those are facts?

How about these choices?

Join the military, become a General, become head of the Joint Chiefs. Become Secretary of State.

Get a law degree. Watch some porn . Become a member of the Supreme Court.

Become National Security Advisor after getting a PhD and being a professor as well as various other things.

Of course if you choose any of the above, you are a sellout, an Oreo, an Uncle Tom.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Sure, although census statistics are less malleable than most. It is, after all, the biggest statistical sample there is and the census bureau goes to a lot of trouble to maintain its accuracy.

yes, and I wasn't discussing the census so much, but even so, not everyone gets included in the census for a variety of reasons.
Mainly, its poverty statistics are the most affected by non-respondents, because many in extreme poverty cannot be reached by normal means (mail, telephone).
The Census relies a great deal on an army of volunteers to try to locate those categories of people, but there is no way to definitely know that they've gotten a large enough percentage to qualify their statistics which deal with that very group of people.
(not sure I'm explaining this correctly, but if there is a hidden population of unemployed, there is no way to be sure you've found 80% of them since there could be many more you haven't found)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Mastrap:



It's got nothing to do with being patronising. It has got everything to do with numbers. if you're black, hispanic or native Amrican you are more likely to:

live in poverty

go to prison

be murdered

be a single parent

be alcohol or drug dependent

Them's the facts>

First of all, I would hope most blacks and hispanics would be outraged that people think they are by race, more likely to be alcohol or drug dependant. I don't buy that for a second. Native Americans and alcohol you may have a point, but I believe that's actually due to genetics.

I do find your attitude in reguard to what dave was talking about patronizing to the races you mentioned and out of another era. You skirted around the question I asked- I don't believe that any of those groups have any racial barriers (other than the ones constantly foisted on them by patronizing liberals it seems) to doing any of the things that you directly responded to dave about, accusing him of living in the 50's. Again, your attitude that these people are held back from 'offering unique skills' or having an opportunity to 'better themselves' or any of the aforementioned items due to poverty or whatever other bogeyman you want to come up with, seems to me like a 'write off' attitude from the 1920's or something.

Notice who it is that always injects race and other factors into these arguments anyway.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Having in the past been obliged to produce 'information graphics' (which were anything but) for the world of advertising and design...

I would like to join you in your quest. Please accept me as your squire, sire.

:: trots away banging coconuts into the fog ::

I'd be honored, squire!

or...was that "I'd be an honored squirrel"? no matter...:: trots away banging coconuts into the fog ::

[daimoni]

.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, and I wasn't discussing the census so much, but even so, not everyone gets included in the census for a variety of reasons.
Mainly, its poverty statistics are the most affected by non-respondents, because many in extreme poverty cannot be reached by normal means (mail, telephone).
The Census relies a great deal on an army of volunteers to try to locate those categories of people, but there is no way to definitely know that they've gotten a large enough percentage to qualify their statistics which deal with that very group of people.
(not sure I'm explaining this correctly, but if there is a hidden population of unemployed, there is no way to be sure you've found 80% of them since there could be many more you haven't found)

Well, you will be happy to hear that I read the other day that the Census Bureau is going to release the statistically-normed results.

Nevertheless, I think the income statistics I pointed to are probably pretty accurate. Obviously, they won't include black markets, but the legal employment market is verifiable enough to determine income accurately by. And based on that, the average household income is a comfortable $42K. From that figure I think we can reasonably infer that most people do not derive a significant part of their income from flipping hamburgers as has been implied by some comments in this thread.

That's really all I was pointing out.

[daimoni]

.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Whoops. I forgot racism doesn't exist... here, in the academic, or the corporate world. Thanks for the update.

Where are you from... Orange County?

Opps. I forgot, racism is ALL that exists. I forgot blacks, hispanics, Native Americans, etc. all just work at McDonalds, clean hospital floors, none of them have any skills or anything to offer and are all are mired in drug and alcohol dependance. None of 'em stands a chance. It's all hopeless. They're all waiting for all those guilt ridden white liberals to ride in on their white horses and 'save' them all from themselves by some magic govt. program that'll turn all the bad things to good.

Wheere are you from again? Bezerkely?

[daimoni]

.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Interesting. I wonder how many families are dual-income? If so... how many jobs does it take to make $42k for the average household?

I'd guess that the figure is an average. It includes everything from pensioners, to working individuals, to dual income families. It also includes children and I think it's reasonable to assume that they don't work at all (which, of course, lowers the average).

You can check against other industrialized economies if you like. Voodoo and I compared notes the other week. The US household per capita household income is just a tad higher than that of Iceland. But I have yet to see anyone suggest that Iceland is in grinding poverty.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:


First of all, I would hope most blacks and hispanics would be outraged that people think they are by race, more likely to be alcohol or drug dependant. I don't buy that for a second. Native Americans and alcohol you may have a point, but I believe that's actually due to genetics.

I do find your attitude in reguard to what dave was talking about patronizing to the races you mentioned and out of another era. You skirted around the question I asked- I don't believe that any of those groups have any racial barriers (other than the ones constantly foisted on them by patronizing liberals it seems) to doing any of the things that you directly responded to dave about, accusing him of living in the 50's. Again, your attitude that these people are held back from 'offering unique skills' or having an opportunity to 'better themselves' or any of the aforementioned items due to poverty or whatever other bogeyman you want to come up with, seems to me like a 'write off' attitude from the 1920's or something.

Notice who it is that always injects race and other factors into these arguments anyway.

Read the facts

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Next door. In this whites-only town called Oakland, CA.

So is everyone there mired in hopeless poverty? No hope? No opportunity?

What are you doing on the internet? Don't you have a shift at BK coming up or someone's floor to mop, or are you off due to drug or alchohol dependancy rehab? Your communication skills seem okay enough for someone who has no opportunity at an education.

Hey, I'm just going by Mastrap's world view.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:


Those are facts?

How about these choices?

Join the military, become a General, become head of the Joint Chiefs. Become Secretary of State.

Get a law degree. Watch some porn . Become a member of the Supreme Court.

Become National Security Advisor after getting a PhD and being a professor as well as various other things.

Of course if you choose any of the above, you are a sellout, an Oreo, an Uncle Tom.

Life isn't all about personal freedom of choice. Life is also about how your environment restricts your personal choice.

If you can't understand that you've never been in a situation where the above applied.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:




Hey, I'm just going by Mastrap's world view.

Please do not put words into my mouth. Thank you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Mastrap:



Please do not put words into my mouth. Thank you.

No need to. I'll go by what you posted.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:


That is the great thing about this country. Nobody is FORCING anyone to work a job that sacrifices their health.

We all have the opportunity to work harder, educate ourselves further, offer employers unique skills or just come up with creative ways of making money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:

Exept if you're happen to be black, hispanic or of native American background of course.


Did you read (and comprehend) what Dave wrote? So Blacks, hispanice, native Americans are FORCED to work jobs that sacrifice their health? FORCED? They DON'T have any opportunity to work harder? Educate themselves? Offer unique job skills? Come up with creative ways of making money? Your posting some group of stats doesn�t address your basic statement above or whatever beliefs are behind it.

HOW am I putting any words in your mouth? You're the one who somehow thinks so little of the racial groups that you injected into this, that it would even occur to you that they as groups don't have these things.


If one wants to get into blatant 'what is a conservative vs. what is a liberal' absolutes, more and more I gather that liberals believe in an inherent inferiority of many minorities, and base a lot of their insistence on opposing viewpoints to theirs being �racist� whenever others don�t accept or outright reject the same notions.

[daimoni]

.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Heh. I'd thought you'd be out of breath by now. Would you like to do another few laps around the block again?

You grabbed hold of something that was never implied.. clutched it between your teeth, and ran off like it was a Diggum' Smack.

Hours of amusement!

Never fear Daimoni. Maybe Mastrap will come to rescue you from Oakland!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It amazes me that any minority of any stripe has ANY shred of trust for white liberals. Really.

Conservative get blasted for things they never said, or that liberals SAY they said.

Liberals actually come out and say things that DIRECTLY state blacks, hispanics, native americans etc. have no education, nothing unique to offer an employer, and can't come up with ideas that make money-class them all in one lump group at the same level as BK workers and hospital janitors and want a FREE PASS for saying it!

Astounding!

I'll never cease to be amazed at why anyone of a minority would think people that even think this way have their best interests at heart.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Did you read (and comprehend) what Dave wrote? So Blacks, hispanice, native Americans are FORCED to work jobs that sacrifice their health? FORCED? They DON'T have any opportunity to work harder? Educate themselves? Offer unique job skills? Come up with creative ways of making money? Your posting some group of stats doesn�t address your basic statement above or whatever beliefs are behind it.

HOW am I putting any words in your mouth? You're the one who somehow thinks so little of the racial groups that you injected into this, that it would even occur to you that they as groups don't have these things.

FWIW, I think both sides here are arguing different things, and arguing past each other.
One side is trying to make the point that opportunities are not equal for all ethnic groups.
Another side is saying that the opportunity to work hard and make something of yourself is not racially-restricted.

Elements of both statements are true, but both statements in their absolute form are false.

There are different and to some degree lesser economic opportunities for employment based on geographical areas. Oftentimes (though not always) many of the more depressed economic areas are higher in ethnicity than others. I think pretty much we can all see this, in terms of things like extremely rural areas, American Indian Reservations, highly urban centers, etc.
There ARE people who manage to make it "off the reservation" or "out of the ghetto" to use the cliched phrase, but the hurdles are harder and more frustrating than is experienced by and large by the members of other geographical areas.

However, I still do not understand what point that really makes, for either side. I think both sides are trying to use these data bits to prove unrelated points.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
It amazes me that any minority of any stripe has ANY shred of trust for white liberals. Really.

Conservative get blasted for things they never said, or that liberals SAY they said.

Liberals actually come out and say things that DIRECTLY state blacks, hispanics, native americans etc. have no education, nothing unique to offer an employer, and can't come up with ideas that make money-class them all in one lump group at the same level as BK workers and hospital janitors and want a FREE PASS for saying it!

Astounding!

I'll never cease to be amazed at why anyone of a minority would think people that even think this way have their best interests at heart.

the true answer is that neither group has minority interests at heart better than the minorities would themselves...natch.
However, if asking whether a group that might appear overtly racist and one that might appear indirectly racist is better, I think they'd ask for a third choice.



but maybe we should ask them....

(I edited to change to "might appear")

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


the true answer is that neither group has minority interests at heart better than the minorities would themselves...natch.

You and I have absolutly no disagreement with this what-so-ever Lerk.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Life isn't all about personal freedom of choice. Life is also about how your environment restricts your personal choice.

I guess I'm just a wild-eyed optimist but this is one of the most pesimistic things I've ever read.

You must have been beaten down by "the man" one too many times.

But I honestly believe that life IS about Freedom and Choice. You can CHOOSE not to let your environment restrict you.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I guess I'm just a wild-eyed optimist but this is one of the most pesimistic things I've ever read.

You must have been beaten down by "the man" one too many times.

But I honestly believe that life IS about Freedom and Choice. You can CHOOSE not to let your environment restrict you.

I agree with Mastrap.

There's a well-known phenomenon in human perception called the fundamental attribution error. It's the tendency to believe that things happen to people because of who they are, rather than circumstances that are beyond their control. Blaming the victim is one example of this.

Patty Hearst is a good example. She was kidnapped, raped, tortured, and forced to "join" a group that went out and robbed banks. Obviously she never would have "joined" this group had she not been forced to. But once she got out, she was tried for the crimes that this group had committed, even though they were the ones who had kidnapped her in the first place. Not only was she tried, but she was found guilty.

This phenomenon has been so well-documented and appears to be such a pervasive bias, that it's called "fundamental." There are a zillion studies showing this - people are shown videos of other people being told that they have to do something, and yet they still judge them as having wanted to do it.

Are the harder-working, smarter people really the only ones who do well, and the dumb lazy ones really the only ones who do poorly? No way. Sure, those things have an impact, but dumb luck (good or bad) plays at least as large a role.

The entire basis of conservative philosophy is pinned on this simple error of perception. The liberal philosophy, to me, is simply based on appreciating the fact that there is some effect of circumstance on people. It is based on not committing the fundamental attribution error.

[Timo]

There is, in fact, a whole literature on this, describing the relationship between an agent (you or me) and the agent's environment. One take I like describes a person's internal disposition (a habitus) which is a durable set of dispositions, and how it intersects with a field (a specific social space, say a school, or a career, or a geographic location, etc.)

Such ideas do not argue for people being robots, but they do go a long way in describing what kind of limitations there are on "free will" (which seems to me to be another phrase like "free market": that is, these things don't really exist in the purity that their names might suggest).

[daimoni]

.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree with Mastrap.

There's a well-known phenomenon in human perception called the fundamental attribution error. It's the tendency to believe that things happen to people because of who they are, rather than circumstances that are beyond their control. Blaming the victim is one example of this.

Patty Hearst is a good example. She was kidnapped, raped, tortured, and forced to "join" a group that went out and robbed banks. Obviously she never would have "joined" this group had she not been forced to. But once she got out, she was tried for the crimes that this group had committed, even though they were the ones who had kidnapped her in the first place. Not only was she tried, but she was found guilty.

This phenomenon has been so well-documented and appears to be such a pervasive bias, that it's called "fundamental." There are a zillion studies showing this - people are shown videos of other people being told that they have to do something, and yet they still judge them as having wanted to do it.

Are the harder-working, smarter people really the only ones who do well, and the dumb lazy ones really the only ones who do poorly? No way. Sure, those things have an impact, but dumb luck (good or bad) plays at least as large a role.

The entire basis of conservative philosophy is pinned on this simple error of perception. The liberal philosophy, to me, is simply based on appreciating the fact that there is some effect of circumstance on people. It is based on not committing the fundamental attribution error.

As far as I know, there isn't any evidence to suggest that the fundamental attribution error correlates with the American political spectrum. Claiming that "the entire basis of conservative philosophy is pinned" on it is, uhh, bold. Sources?

There is evidence that the fundamental attribution error is more common in individualistic cultures--such as that of the US--but unless you're admitting that "liberal philosophy" fundamentally opposes American culture, I don't see how that helps your point. (source )

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Joshua:


As far as I know, there isn't any evidence to suggest that the fundamental attribution error correlates with the American political spectrum. Claiming that "the entire basis of conservative philosophy is pinned" on it is, uhh, bold. Sources?

There is evidence that the fundamental attribution error is more common in individualistic cultures--such as that of the US--but unless you're admitting that "liberal philosophy" fundamentally opposes American culture, I don't see how that helps your point. (source )

I'm not making an empirical argument - I'm not saying "it's been demonstrated in studies x, y, and z that conservatives are more likely to display the bias." (Although there may be studies that show just that, I don't know.) But I'm making a rational argument.

I'm arguing that the belief in total personal determination expressed by conservatives - basically that the rich are rich because they're hard working and the poor are poor because they're lazy - is an example of the FAE. It's putting all responsibility on the individual, and not considering situational factors. That is the definition of the FAE.

And by the way, I think the individualistic-collectivistic distinction does make my point. I think it's clear that Americans are much more conservative than other cultures, and also much more individualistic. Compare the American political spectrum to countries in Europe, for example. Our Democrats would be conservatives in most of Europe, and in the US we don't even have anyone as left as Europes mainstream left wing parties.

And this is even if we just focus on the libertarian wing among conservatives, and set aside the idea that conservatism is really about protecting their contributors among big business and the wealthy and traditionalist moral values, which is what I happen to believe. I personally believe that true liberals believe in encouraging real personal determination, in both social and economic realms, more than conservatives. Conservatives want to keep the status quo - rich stay rich, poor stay poor.