Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Interesting article
Published on September 29, 2004 By Draginol In Health & Medicine

Here's an interesting read about someone who volunteered to help the poor by working in a soup van. His experiences sound much like what I've seen from others who have done the same kinds of things as well as my own experiences -- most people who are in poverty are...sorry to say...losers.  People who are either lacking in some basic trait (living in their own filth, unwilling to work, belligerent, etc.) or deficient mentally (those people one can understand and I don't apply the "loser" tag to them).

Some people want to pretend that most people who live in poverty are there because of unfairness in society or because of the government or something. I don't agree.  I think is much more straight forward - they're either mentally/physically disabled or simply losers.  In any society, you're going to have a certain percentage of people who are just leeches. People who just take form society without any desire to give anything back. It's a small percentage of people thankfully but large enough to still turn into millions of people.


Comments
on Sep 29, 2004
I have trouble figuring you out, draginol . . . you seem like a good guy, and I can understand the arguments you make about welfare, living wage, taxes, etc. based on the facts that you put together. I just have a hard time understanding your heart. Maybe I just don't know you well enough yet.
on Sep 29, 2004
Brad,

Good article. The people highlighted in the linked story all appeared to have mental illness symptoms from the little information given.

Poverty takes on many faces. We'd like to think it's just the mentally ill and/or the leeches, but many good, honest, hardworking people experience poverty from time to time. While it's not "society's fault", or "the government's fault", but rather circumstance, there are rather simple ways we can fix it.

Example: on a couple occasions in my life, I have had some very good opportunities open up for me...the problem is, I didn't have the resources to locate. It caused me to wonder how many people get caught in a similar circumstance, where the answer could be as simple as providing assistance in relocating.

Either way, I think it should come from private charities, not the government ideally.
on Sep 30, 2004

TW, Brad is a good guy.  Trust me, he has helped out many people, but those people where ones who deserved it and worked for it.  Which is different than what that article shows.  I think that he is pointing out a trait that you can see all over the place, and one that is very apparent in the people who remain in poverty.  (That is not the type of person who fell on bad luck, it's the type of person who basically doesn't try).

In business, we have run into the same type of people on a different level.  They want things to happen, but they aren't willing to work to make them happen.  We had a software associate who wanted a part of something that we were doing.  We told him that we would help, but he needed to promote his own stuff, get it up on the shareware sites, etc.  He obviously didn't want to work for it, he didn't bother to do anything that we asked, so we didn't help.  Why should we bust our butts to help somebody who isn't willing to do the same?

In society, why should people help people that aren't willing to help themselves?  People have bad luck, but that is temporary.  Long term poverty is not "bad luck".  It ends up being a life choice.

on Sep 30, 2004
You know, Karma, thinking back on what I wrote, I really did not say it in the best way. When I said "I just have a hard time understanding your heart," it sounds like I mean that I think he is a bad person or that I am judging him morally, which is not what I meant and also a bit of an out of line thing for me to say. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that his point of view on poverty is so foreign to me.

I realize that I may have an exaggerated sense of empathy that drives me to feel the way I do, and I also conceed that Brad is older and has more life experience than I do. I do agree with this
He obviously didn't want to work for it, he didn't bother to do anything that we asked, so we didn't help. Why should we bust our butts to help somebody who isn't willing to do the same?
Even the Bible says that if you don't work, you don't eat.

I think the primary difference between Brad's point of view and my own is that I automatically assume that there is some tragic extenuating circumstance that has put a given person into a place of need, and it seems to me that Brad's automatic assumption is the opposite. I realize that my assumption is often wrong, however, I have studied sociology quite a bit, and I am convinced that many factors beyond an individual's control can keep them from pulling themselves up out of poverty. This is not always the case, but it is true that a culture of poverty only breeds more poverty. You know, maybe welfare and the like are not having the intended effect, but it is in the interest of society that we work towards the elimination of poverty (it will never be eliminated, but to work towards that end is beneficial).

Hmmm . . . I definitely don't have the answers to it all, though. he he he . . . it's just this damn "bleeding heart" of mine . . . can't make it go away.

on Sep 30, 2004

I think the primary difference between Brad's point of view and my own is that I automatically assume that there is some tragic extenuating circumstance that has put a given person into a place of need, and it seems to me that Brad's automatic assumption is the opposite


I think that a lot of that comes from life experience.  I tend to lean more towards Draginol's way of thinking ("id just have phrased it a little more gently). I've lived in a lot of places, mixed with a myriad of different people, and I agree basically with what he says. Most of the perpetually needy I've seen are there because they had some kind of mental illness, an addiction, or because they kept making poor choices time and again. I don't mind helping people out, but they have to be willing to help themselves out or we'll just be back at square one. 


Good article and good link.....

on Sep 30, 2004

Texas,


I have always put it this way:


Many liberals would subsidize 1,000 mooches just to help one person who needs it; while many conservatives would starve 1,000 people who need it just to starve the one mooch. We need someone in between, who is there to help those who truly need it, while weeding out the mooches. It is a drain on desperately needed resources to spend time and money on the mooches that could go to those in true need.


It is for this reason that I belive that private charities could do a better job addressing the needs of the poor in a community than the government could. The government is a large, faceless bureaucracy, and many needy fall through the cracks because of the logistical impossibility of addressing the needs of the individual in a government system.


Reading Brad consistently, he's VERY concerned about helping people in need; I have to give him a great deal of credit for posting the Stardock job opportunities to this site so that people who may be desperately needy have some very real job options put before them if they're willing to relocate (if we hadn't already made another decision, I would be applying for a couple of those jobs myself). I have had no problem seeing where Brad is coming from; it's a view not very dissimilar from my own.

on Sep 30, 2004
Well I wouldn't be willing to starve 1000 needy people to thwart 1 mooch. Mostly, I'm not willing to damage society in order to help 1 needy person out of a 1000 mooches.
on Sep 30, 2004
right, draginol...I would classify you as being fairly centrist on this particular issue.
on Oct 03, 2004
I think there are ways to have charities and government both help. There are definitely people that fall through the cracks and our system has flaws. But leaving it up to individuals or charities to decide who deserves help is not a good idea. And most charities would shut down entirely without government grants. Besides, many people that used to give, now need the help themselves. I would think that people that advocate weeding out the losers and advocates work, would be more in favor of government. You must prove your need, over and over. You must work for the help you get. You must be on a time limit. Once you have used up your limit, you get no help for the rest of your life, no matter what.
Meta
Views
» 795
Comments
» 9
Sponsored Links