|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
GH, I think your perspective is admirable, but it isn't absolute. It is still more ethical for you to move outside the US and help people in other poor countries. Pretty much no matter your skill set, you would be an amazing resource for developing countries. By the reasoning you are offering, you should not be able to sleep at night. You grant yourself the luxury of living in the US instead of doing WAY more good for humanity by helping prevent children from starting to death.
Overall, someone very unreasonable could say you are deeply selfish and unethical by staying in a country as lush as the US when you could be doing 100x more good helping children in poor communities.
|
On October 17 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lol. Because of what I just said. The people with the captial to fix the problems shove the problems away towards other impoverished people who don't have the capital to fix the problems.
Then say "well I'l vote to help, but mysteriously it rarely comes up in my gentrified community that removed or placed itself far away from the people we would help if they were around us" So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids? It is all a matter of how scope is defined. That's why I said it is noble for society and unethical as a parent. A single family who is above the average income of an area has a net positive impact on that area's school funding. The community benefits from the family moving in. But for the child who had a choice between either one, all available social science data indicates that child is worse off in the poor community. It's been too long since my ethics coursework, but I think people called this scope of analysis or whatever. No matter how you slice it, the life of that family's child is statistically more likely to be negative than if the family decided on the rich neighborhood. But considering both communities as a whole, the rich community benefits less from the rich family than the poor community would for the poor family. So if the scope is both communities as a single entity, the ethical thing for the parents to do is to live in the poor neighborhood. That is still a different answer than considering just their own child. Having a unique perspective after living in 2 very, very different areas (one poor and one rich), I would never hesitate to send my kid to the rich one. I realize I am a worse person as a citizen of Earth because of it, but I accept that.
Which I think was the point. You're a worse person as a citizen and you are contributing toward (and advocating others reinforce) it's perpetuation. I think that's selfish and counterproductive if ones goal is to actually resolve the issues and not just put them out of sight so they can revel in the privileges of not resolving those issues.
On October 17 2017 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think your perspective is admirable, but it isn't absolute. It is still more ethical for you to move outside the US and help people in other poor countries. Pretty much no matter your skill set, you would be an amazing resource for developing countries. By the reasoning you are offering, you should not be able to sleep at night. You grant yourself the luxury of living in the US instead of doing WAY more good for humanity by helping prevent children from starting to death.
Overall, someone very unreasonable could say you are deeply selfish and unethical by staying in a country as lush as the US when you could be doing 100x more good helping children in poor communities.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps I do in fact struggle with this?
|
On October 17 2017 08:11 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 08:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed.
"The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids? What do you think about school districts that bus students around specifically to achieve certain diversity metrics? What "diversity metrics"? "have no more than 40 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch" I'm from NC so this is specifically regarding Wake County if you want to read more into it. I am not aware how widespread such programs are throughout the country.
Diverse neighborhoods would be better, but busing is better than wealth segregation.
|
On October 17 2017 06:54 Godwrath wrote:
Was there proof and legal charges on H.Clinton threatening victims or did you just get lost into your own innocent until proven guilty argument?
Reporters wrote articles about the team she led to deal with “bimbo eruptions” and aides testified to how she sought to “destroy” a story of an accuser and “blackmail” another in recanting.
Paula Jones settled her sexual harassment case against Bill Clinton for $850,000.
|
That isn't evidence of threats of a criminal nature.
|
Fire crews were starting to gain the upper hand on numerous blazes in Northern California that have killed at least 41 people and destroyed thousands of homes, but officials warned that the deadliest wildfires in the state's history were far from extinguished.
The death toll rose Monday after "a private water tender driver assigned to the Nuns Fire tragically died in a vehicle rollover on Oakville Grande in Napa County," according to Cal Fire. The driver has not yet been publicly identified.
Hundreds of people have been listed as unaccounted for, but many of them have been located safely. In Sonoma County, Sheriff Rob Giordano said authorities have accounted for 1,560 of the more than 1,700 once listed as missing, according to AP.
With ferocious winds dying down and the fires contained in some areas, about a quarter of the nearly 100,000 people who had been ordered to flee have been allowed to return to their homes — or at least what is left of them.
Marking firefighters' progress, Cal Fire Deputy Chief Bret Gouvea said at a Sunday press briefing, "Things feel good in our gut as firefighters."
The Chronicle reports:
"Underscoring the progress, authorities in Napa County lifted all evacuation orders in Calistoga in the afternoon. State officials predicted they would fully contain, or surround, every active blaze in Sonoma County by Friday, and the region was even due for a bit of badly needed rain at the end of the week."
Even so, 40,000 people were still being told to stay away. Some 5,700 structures have been destroyed by the flames, according to California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire.
"This is my home. I'm going to come back without question," 56-year-old Howard Lasker, who returned Sunday with his daughter to view their torched house in Santa Rosa, told The Associated Press. "I have to rebuild. I want to rebuild."
In Santa Rosa, the Sonoma County seat, Mayor Chris Coursey told member station KQED he is grateful that firefighters may finally be gaining the upper hand on the fires. "We here in the city of Santa Rosa feel like we can take a breath. And we can start, instead of just worrying about the five minutes in front of our faces — that we're able to take a step back, look five days out, maybe even five weeks out," Coursey said.
"We've lost almost 5 percent of the housing stock in Santa Rosa," Coursey said Friday afternoon. "We're looking at $1.2 billion in damage in Santa Rosa alone. It's a huge hill we've got to climb."
One of those who are now homeless is Tracey Cooper, who gasped when she saw what was left of her house. "Everything's gone. I mean, everything," she told NPR's David Schaper.
A concrete foundation, some rock pillars from the garage, twisted and scorched metal and roof tiles are all that remain amid powdery gray and white ash.
"And just to see the devastation, it's something most people just don't see in their lifetime, thank God; it's — I mean, it's just unbelievable," Cooper said.
Ten miles northeast of Santa Rosa is the city of Calistoga, near where Sonoma wildland firefighter Steven Moore is stationed.
"We're pretty exhausted. It's pretty steep terrain," Moore told NPR's Eric Westervelt.
Nearly 11,000 firefighters are arrayed against 14 large fires — down from 21 last week — that have charred more than 200,000 acres, mostly in the counties of Sonoma, Napa and Mendocino.
The Tubbs Fire alone has burned through more than 36,000 acres and killed at least 18 people from Calistoga to Santa Rosa. It was 70 percent contained as of Monday afternoon, according to Cal Fire. The Atlas Fire engulfed an additional 51,000 acres, destroying homes and wineries northeast of the city of Napa, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. That fire was 68 percent contained.
Source
|
Who even cares about Hillary anymore? She has no actual power and is extremely unlikely to ever get any again.
|
Wanna take a guess at how many time Trump will mention Hillary in 2020?
|
The latest in the Boeing and Bombadier CSeries fights:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-airbus-c-series-1.4357567
The trade war over the planes is going to heat up a bit.
European aircraft giant Airbus Group is buying a majority stake in Bombardier's CSeries program.
The two aircraft manufacturers announced the partnership Monday evening, weeks after the United States announced 300 per cent preliminary duties on exports of the aircraft following a complaint from Airbus rival Boeing.
The partnership is expected to result in significant CSeries production cost savings by leveraging Airbus's supply chain expertise, but Airbus won't be paying any money for the acquired stake.
|
|
|
Not commenting on the post, but just a head's up, the third link is from before the election.
|
On October 17 2017 09:12 Saryph wrote:Not commenting on the post, but just a head's up, the third link is from before the election.
I know, I just grabbed one. I don't know if she's commented on it recently, but I don't think it matters to the point.
|
the hacking quote only sounds odd when you take it out of context (and omitting key parts of it), if you read it in the full text it's fine.
pedantic note: that it's an old quote on the syria thing matters an awful lot. since your stated thesis is "still grabbing headlines", a pre-election article does nothing to support that thesis. it's just your usual hatemongering, not trying to actually cite things to support your claim.
|
On October 17 2017 09:48 zlefin wrote:
the hacking quote only sounds odd when you take it out of context (and omitting key parts of it), if you read it in the full text it's fine.
pedantic note: that it's an old quote on the syria thing matters an awful lot. since your stated thesis is "still grabbing headlines", a pre-election article does nothing to support that thesis. it's just your usual hatemongering, not trying to actually cite things to support your claim.
No it doesn't. I suppose the formatting wasn't especially clear, but that wasn't a headline. And the Syria part was just emphasizing that it's not just recent but perpetuating something she was seeking before she lost.
Calling my post outlining why she isn't irrelevant and is part of a chorus on "the left" egging on war with Russia as "hate mongering" is the typical non-engagement shitpost I've come to expect from you though.
|
On October 16 2017 09:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2017 09:17 mierin wrote:
Capitalism seems to be a double edged sword. Without it, we wouldn't have gone to the moon, accomplished what we've accomplished etc. but all the people with the money make the rules, and all the rules are made to prop up people with all the money. Who's going to change that? that's a rather broad question for the US politics thread; is there something specific you're responding to? or just more generally interested in how the solution process would work? do you want input, or did you just mostly want to comment?
I guess it was a rhetorical question.
|
|
|
If he needs someone to hold that 2 billion for him, I am his man.
|
On October 17 2017 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
So what is the solution? What can I do? Are you saying I should choose to move to a worse area? Don't you think this moral dilemma gets a little dicey when someone also has kids? Should I be willing to put my kids in a worse school in a worse area for the sake of doing my part to help raise a community up out of poverty somehow? Gang violence, drug violence and generally dicey shit had a big impact on me as a kid and I will fight tooth and nail to keep my own kids from being exposed to it. I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed. "The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids? It is all a matter of how scope is defined. That's why I said it is noble for society and unethical as a parent. A single family who is above the average income of an area has a net positive impact on that area's school funding. The community benefits from the family moving in. But for the child who had a choice between either one, all available social science data indicates that child is worse off in the poor community. It's been too long since my ethics coursework, but I think people called this scope of analysis or whatever. No matter how you slice it, the life of that family's child is statistically more likely to be negative than if the family decided on the rich neighborhood. But considering both communities as a whole, the rich community benefits less from the rich family than the poor community would for the poor family. So if the scope is both communities as a single entity, the ethical thing for the parents to do is to live in the poor neighborhood. That is still a different answer than considering just their own child. Having a unique perspective after living in 2 very, very different areas (one poor and one rich), I would never hesitate to send my kid to the rich one. I realize I am a worse person as a citizen of Earth because of it, but I accept that. Which I think was the point. You're a worse person as a citizen and you are contributing toward (and advocating others reinforce) it's perpetuation. I think that's selfish and counterproductive if ones goal is to actually resolve the issues and not just put them out of sight so they can revel in the privileges of not resolving those issues. Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think your perspective is admirable, but it isn't absolute. It is still more ethical for you to move outside the US and help people in other poor countries. Pretty much no matter your skill set, you would be an amazing resource for developing countries. By the reasoning you are offering, you should not be able to sleep at night. You grant yourself the luxury of living in the US instead of doing WAY more good for humanity by helping prevent children from starting to death.
Overall, someone very unreasonable could say you are deeply selfish and unethical by staying in a country as lush as the US when you could be doing 100x more good helping children in poor communities. Has it occurred to you that perhaps I do in fact struggle with this?
Do you struggle with the implications of continually advocating for the confiscation at gun point of other peoples resources ?
|
On October 17 2017 10:30 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying making it someone else's problem by either removing yourself or removing people who live in poverty is a large part of why it doesn't get fixed.
"The solution" isn't something I'm going to be able to lay out here, but I can assure you that if poverty is at your doorstep you are far more focused on fixing it than when it's some far away town you think is shit. So let's say someone graduates from college and is getting ready to move to their new apartment for their new job in a new city. They can either pay $900/month for a shitty apartment in a shitty area or $1300 for a nice apartment in a nice area. Both are equidistant to work. Are you saying it is unethical for this person to choose the nicer area? Is it the sort of thing where "barring crazy circumstances" someone should always seek to help impoverished areas by injecting themselves into it? I don't think I was making an ethics argument as much as a practical one. To that end, $1300 for a nice area isn't helping resolve the underlying issues of the "shitty area". So I suppose it depends on your ethics if one think's it's unethical or not. My impression over the past few posts is that you think people trying to help from afar are not doing as much as they could be. This is obviously true. I could also be donating all non-essential components of my paycheck to local families in need. I could do a lot. The question I am asking is what you think is reasonable to ask someone to do. Let's say the person I described above was a friend of yours and they were talking about their dilemma. What would you say they should do? Would you encourage them to live in the worse area for the sake of helping to bring wealth to these communities and undo the segregation that had taken place? For what it's worth I've had this discussion with several of my friends and it's pretty much broken down along race lines. My black friends agreed with me and decided it was the least they could do in deference to those that sacrificed before them. My white friends felt no such obligation, and argued from a specifically self-centered position. So as it stands, my white friends are gentrifying/escaping while my black friends are uplifting what is now their community without kicking out the undesirables. Surely this isn't that hard for you to see? Yeah, at the end of the day, I just don't see the value. It is certainly a noble perspective in some ways, but notably unethical in many others.
We have troves of data showing the types of ways children struggle because of segregation and concentrating the poor into poorer and poorer areas. A series of butterfly effects can be the difference between being president or being homeless. In a vacuum, I would say choosing to send a child to a worse school is choosing to give that child a higher chance of having a fundamentally unhappy life vs fundamentally happy and fruitful life. I would therefore describe these people as poor parents, but ethical citizens. They are making an effort to be ethical citizens by sacrificing % chance of happy life for a child they are responsible for. Holy shit... I stand corrected. How about explaining what you disagree with? In what way is choosing to send a kid to a worse school and live in a worse area not lowering the % chance of a happy, fruitful life? It is the entire reason we have various outreach programs and whatnot. It is a big issue. Schools in poor areas suffer tremendously. It is a big, sad problem. For that reason, choosing to send your kid there is undoubtedly a decision to lower their chances of a favorable outcome. It is noble for society and (statistically) bad for the child. Even speaking from my own experiences, when I moved away from my area with gang/drug violence, it was a day and night difference. It is a really, really big difference. You know how schools are funded right? Think about how people with money moving away from poor schools impacts those kids who can't escape? Is that making the problem better or worse for those innocent kids? It is all a matter of how scope is defined. That's why I said it is noble for society and unethical as a parent. A single family who is above the average income of an area has a net positive impact on that area's school funding. The community benefits from the family moving in. But for the child who had a choice between either one, all available social science data indicates that child is worse off in the poor community. It's been too long since my ethics coursework, but I think people called this scope of analysis or whatever. No matter how you slice it, the life of that family's child is statistically more likely to be negative than if the family decided on the rich neighborhood. But considering both communities as a whole, the rich community benefits less from the rich family than the poor community would for the poor family. So if the scope is both communities as a single entity, the ethical thing for the parents to do is to live in the poor neighborhood. That is still a different answer than considering just their own child. Having a unique perspective after living in 2 very, very different areas (one poor and one rich), I would never hesitate to send my kid to the rich one. I realize I am a worse person as a citizen of Earth because of it, but I accept that. Which I think was the point. You're a worse person as a citizen and you are contributing toward (and advocating others reinforce) it's perpetuation. I think that's selfish and counterproductive if ones goal is to actually resolve the issues and not just put them out of sight so they can revel in the privileges of not resolving those issues. On October 17 2017 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think your perspective is admirable, but it isn't absolute. It is still more ethical for you to move outside the US and help people in other poor countries. Pretty much no matter your skill set, you would be an amazing resource for developing countries. By the reasoning you are offering, you should not be able to sleep at night. You grant yourself the luxury of living in the US instead of doing WAY more good for humanity by helping prevent children from starting to death.
Overall, someone very unreasonable could say you are deeply selfish and unethical by staying in a country as lush as the US when you could be doing 100x more good helping children in poor communities. Has it occurred to you that perhaps I do in fact struggle with this? Do you struggle with the implications of continually advocating for the confiscation at gun point of other peoples resources ?
Pretty sure that is the natural result if we don't do what GH is suggesting. Wealth disparity and inequality resolve themselves one way or another.
|
Huh, Assange and Snowden seem really invested in Catalonia? That is weird. Russia really played its cards well when it took in Snowden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
