Quote:
Originally Posted by sjh
.
Study: 1 in 5 American children lives in poverty
Starting our day with the daily whine from the MSM. Good ole MSNBC leads the way.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44171347/ns/today-today_news/t/study-american-children-lives-poverty/
First snippet sums it up nicely --
Karla Washington worries how she will afford new school uniforms for her five-year-old daughter.
Washington, an undergraduate student, earns less than $11,000 a year from a part-time university job. The salary must cover food, rent, health care, child care and the occasional splurge on a Blue's Clues item for her only child.
"My biggest fear is not providing my daughter with everything that she needs to be a balanced child, to be independent, to be safe, to feel like she is of value," said Washington, 41.
What's a single 41 year-old women with extremely limited job skills doing trying to raise a family.
Some time in the past 20+ years she needed to look in the mirror and say if I want to accomplish this in my live I need to do some things different.
She didn't make wise choices and now I get to cry while eating my cereal.
Actions/decisions have consequences.
Welcome to life.
. |
First, I commend you for listening and/or reading from perspectives with which you clearly disagree. It indicates a certain open-mindedness. Unless, of course, it's only in order to find things about which to complain; then it would indicate some sort of pettiness.
I am, however, puzzled by the logic your comments take in this thread.
You begin by dismissing the statistic of 20% in poverty as the title of the thread. Do you disagree? Do you think there are more or less? Was the Annie E. Casey study somehow tainted by being reported about in the media? You did read the study and see that's 2009 data, right? So it's probably even higher now.
You select a quote from the article. In that quote a single mother describes her concerns about raising her child. Are those also not your own concerns when you wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjh
She clearly needed to submit to a number of things, discipline, education, rigor, delayed gratfication, embracing wisdom & maturity, etc.
We raise 3 generation of people of people living 25+ years as adolescence who then want others to solve their problems.
The obsessive preoccupation with self, its aggrandizement and appetites is NOT the sign of adulthood, which is in itself a submission, a subsuming of one aspect of self to develop another aspect of self.
,
|
Her concerns are for her child, not herself. In the past, perhaps, she was pre-occupied with self. Now she is seeking education, attempting to raise a child, devoting herself to another. Are these not values that you also propose? Did they come to her too late, and are therefore worthless? Is there a "you must be mature and responsible not later than age" after which you become worthless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjh
Right.
This is not a Christian thing.
It's an adult thing.
.
|
Is what you're doing in this thread the Christian thing, or the adult thing?
I recommend Matthew 7:1-5 for guidance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjh
MSNBC put her up as their poster-child - not me
It could have been any sex, any age, any color, any belief-system, etc
they just put up what they believed would be most sympathetic
an example of objective, fact-based, well-reasoned discourse from our media
don't gore me because I linked to their emotional dribble .
.
|
Are you asking that people not disagree with you about an article that you linked to in OD? Really? I thought you put up the article as a "poster child" for your opinions in order to engage in an enlightening discussion. Is there something in the article that is not objective or fact based? Would a single 30 year old white male christian change your opinion? Okay, substitute those characteristics, now what? Is the poor white single dad christian still worthy of your scorn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjh
pretty picture
For 50 years people have been exposed to persuasion by repetition, volume and emotion
it's what they have been taught
when someone states this is my position because of 1, 2, 3
the only response most know is to hold up their picket sign, whether literally or metaphorically, and wave, yell and protest
that's the limit of their ability to discourse
it's what they have been taught - it's not their fault
when a PhD (I think) humanities professor engages in this method then it is disheartening, not only because it indicates the depths to which the discipline has sunk but also because he teaches this to his students
have no concern for me my friend, with what I have been through this is nothing - thank you though
ahh, the doe-eyed women, you are a wise man
.
|
So you've studied educational methods then? A real pedagogue.
I do see some frequent posters in OD who are limited in discourse. The response above, for example, lacks structure and coherence. I doubt this would pass muster in a humanities course taught by a PhD. It might, however, fit on a picket sign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjh
It's actually been very helpful.
I had been taking high levels of multiple drugs for much of the past year.
I've meet quite a few people that I'd enjoy getting to know better.
The antagonists, particularly the emotion-driven, irrational ones are sort of like sparring in the dojo before a tournament.
It flexes my mind, pushes me sometimes (not often enough, though Honus is fun to engage) and also allows me to acknowledge my errors, make corrections, practice inter-personal skills, and when required to be humble and apologize.
It's somewhat dis-heartening how few others are sufficiently at ease or seeking self-awareness to be able to 'acknowledge errors, make corrections and apologize.'
.
|
Clearly you enjoy the exercise, because you engage so frequently. I do think you need more practice though. More flexing, more acknowledging. I would suggest, though, that perhaps the sensei has lost control of your dojo on more than one occasion.