Give it up, Shemp! Your views are absurd and ridiculous. They rely on prejudice and obnoxious stereotypes, and they ignore well-established facts. They cannot be taken seriously by anyone.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > It's hard to debate with someone who continually resorts to > demeaning > > stereotypes and refuses to accept facts. > > > > > Tell you what, Mother Theresa, why don't you go down to a soup > kitchen in your neighbourhood and take a look at the people in line. > > See how many thin people there are. > > You know, to even suggest that there are people hungry in this > country is an insult to the REAL poor of the world who are truly > deserving of your attention and faux-pity and faux-concern. > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > My objections to your posts on poverty are first that you > > > stereotype the poor > > > > (does anyone ask you if you are spending your money > on "frivolous" > > > things?) > > > > and second that your definition of poverty is out of the > > > mainstream, useless > > > > and wrong. > > > > > > > > Just to give one example, consider this, which I took from the > > > Catholic > > > > Campaign for Human Development at > > > > http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/index.htm > > > > > > > > "Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from `food > > > insecurity' > > > > and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults > and > > > more than > > > > one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in > > > households > > > > experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for > basic > > > nourishment - > > > > compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. > > > Department of > > > > Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, > 2002, > > > October > > > > 2003.) > > > > > > > > So much for your notion that no one in this country suffers > from a > > > lack of the > > > > necessitites of life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't believe it for a moment. > > > > > > If you and I went down to the homes of the people in the study, > what > > > do you think we'd find? > > > > > > I think we'd find people wasting their money on fast food or > > > cigarettes or beer. > > > > > > The reality is that you can earn minimum wage in this country > and > > > have enough for basic nutritional intake. > > > > > > Don't believe everything you read...and start to think for > yourself, > > > feste37. > > > > > > Oh, and two more words for you: food stamps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you have a rosy view of things because Arizona doesn't > > > figure in the > > > > top ten "poverty" states, which are > > > > 1. Mississippi 17.3% below the poverty line > > > > 2. New Mexico 17.3% > > > > 3. Louisiana 16.8% > > > > 4. District of Columbia 16.7% > > > > 4. Texas 16.7% > > > > 6. Arkansas 16.4% > > > > 7. Alabama 16.0% > > > > 7. Kentucky 16.0% > > > > 9. West Virginia 15.8% > > > > 10. North Carolina 15.1% > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did define it. You must have missed the post, since > you > > > didn't > > > > > > > respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of > the > > > post > > > > > was > > > > > > > and don't have time to go to it now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here 'tis: > > > > > > > > > > > > If your point is that poverty in America is very different > > > from > > > > > > poverty in, say, Bangladesh, of course that is true. It's > > > obvious. > > > > > > Poverty is a relative concept. if you don't have the > things > > > that > > > > > the > > > > > > majority of people in your society have, and therefore > cannot > > > > > > participate fully in that society, you are poor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. > > > > > > > > > > Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different > from > > > the > > > > > way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept > which > > > is, > > > > > of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line > > > definition. > > > > > Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not > you > > > have > > > > > the same things as the majority of the people in society > have. > > > > > > > > > > Nor does my definition include whether or not one > > > can "participate > > > > > fully in that society" because they don't have the things > that > > > the > > > > > majority have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an > > > > > > approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I > remember > > > my > > > > > > social science classes from about 15 million years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > You ask about deprivations. Lack of health insurance, for > one, > > > > > which > > > > > > means that people see doctors less often than they should > do > > > and > > > > > need > > > > > > to do, and so lack preventive care. Inability to pay for > > > needed > > > > > > medications is another deprivation. Choosing between food > and > > > > > > medication is another. I'm sure there are many more. It's > > > > > > called "going without," and the poor quietly learn to do > this, > > > but > > > > > > that doesn't mean they are not poor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and I contend that there is no one that the above applies > to > > > in > > > > > America...and that is why there are no poor people. There > are > > > > > social programs -- government or otherwise -- that will take > > > care of > > > > > those essential needs. > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm going to go back and answer the questions you asked > me > > > that > > > > > I haven't yet responded to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" > <feste37@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: > the > > > poor > > > > > > spend > > > > > > > > their money > > > > > > > > > on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that > > > > > > they "shouldn't" > > > > > > > > buy. They > > > > > > > > > should really be more responsible, just like we are > (who > > > do > > > > > not > > > > > > > > have to put up > > > > > > > > > with their privations). And as for the 1,000 > dentists > > > within > > > > > a > > > > > > 50- > > > > > > > > mile radius who > > > > > > > > > would be happy to treat the "deserving" poor for > free -- > > > > > that's > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > good one! > > > > > > > > > Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another > Texan > > > > > > fantasy? > > > > > > > > And who > > > > > > > > > decides who is "deserving"? Do YOU have to prove you > > > > > > > > are "deserving" when > > > > > > > > > you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't > > > smoke or > > > > > > > > drink? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell you what, feste37, you answer my questions about > the > > > > > > definition > > > > > > > > of poverty and then I'll get around to answering YOUR > > > question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm not trying to just play and game of tit-for- > tat > > > with > > > > > you; > > > > > > > > the definition of poverty really is at the heart of > this > > > > > debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you mean by "poverty" whereas you > know > > > > > what I > > > > > > > > mean (because I've given you my definition). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" > > > <feste37@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Complacent advice given by those who have much > to > > > those > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > little, > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized "poor but > > > happy" > > > > > > stuff. > > > > > > > > > > What's to be happy > > > > > > > > > > > about when your teeth are rotting and you can't > > > afford > > > > > to > > > > > > go > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > the dentist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Show me a person who can't afford to go to the > dentist > > > and > > > > > > I'll > > > > > > > > show > > > > > > > > > > you a person who is spending his money on beer, > > > cigarettes > > > > > or > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > other such thing that should NOT be a priority for > > > > > > consumption > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > his or her life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And after you weed out the 99 of 100 "poor" people > > > that > > > > > the > > > > > > > > above > > > > > > > > > > description applies to and you find the actual 1 > of > > > 100 > > > > > that > > > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > > > genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to > you > > > that > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that > person > > > who > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > more than happy to do pro bono work for that > deserving > > > > > person > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > they truly need it (and that's assuming there > isn't a > > > > > social > > > > > > > > program > > > > > > > > > > by the government that will pay for it). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > > > <vajranatha@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A minister of my acquaintance says there are > two > > > ways > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of > money, > > > the > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to have few needs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, "live simply". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
