The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Why are the poor, poor?
Artiste:
HerrKaiser, maybe the poor is poor because they are too much:
'Stereotyped' ??
.............
Instead of looking at each person to see what and how it can be helped ?
Seriously ?
Au revoir,
hugs!
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on May 08, 2008, 06:01:44 pm ---Look, it is quite, imo, disingenuous to claim 'stereotyping' and 'oversimpliying' when discussing a strategic movement forward to help solve the issues of non productivity and drains on the social system. I find it counterproductive to stall or roadblock strategies because they may not, in an overall sense, address every possible variant.
In claiming 'stereotyping' you would seemingly deny good pharmaceuticals from being on the market because they "stereotype' results among the largest populations of symptoms/results when, in fact, some people could die from usage or missuse.
'Stereotyping' is negative buzz word that should more often than not be replaced with 'target audience'.
--- End quote ---
Um ... well, OK, let's see: "Your stereotyping and oversimplifying target audience of anti-poverty programs keeps you from seeing that many of them already do just that."
Hunh??
I don't think you understood my point, because it has nothing to do with proper allocation of pharmaceuticals.
My point, to put it in the simplest possible terms, is that there are already anti-poverty programs in place devoted to teaching Johnny how to do his homework, to use your analogy, and in other ways teaching people to catch their own fish. Your posts suggest that you may not realize that.
If not, my best guess is it's because standard conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away. That's where the word "stereotype" comes in -- not really replaceable, in this context, with "target audience."
Artiste:
Everyone needs education.
The poor is getting less and less of it !!
So dope pushers have a field day, everyday!
Why is that ?
Au revoir,ΒΈ
hugs!
HerrKaiser:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 08, 2008, 06:16:37 pm ---Um ... well, OK, let's see: "Your stereotyping and oversimplifying target audience of anti-poverty programs keeps you from seeing that many of them already do just that."
Hunh??
I don't think you understood my point, because it has nothing to do with proper allocation of pharmaceuticals.
My point, to put it in the simplest possible terms, is that there are already anti-poverty programs in place devoted to teaching Johnny how to do his homework, to use your analogy, and in other ways teaching people to catch their own fish. Your posts suggest that you may not realize that.
If not, my best guess is it's because standard conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away. That's where the word "stereotype" comes in -- not really replaceable, in this context, with "target audience."
--- End quote ---
You are right, i do not understand your point and your simplest of terms explanation made it no more clear.
If you are suggesting that conservatives assume 100% of assistance programs are ineffective and 100% of such program recipients have not benefitted in some way, you are stereotyping the "conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away". Most surely appear to be; if any are not, great. But, it cannot be denied that the extensive desire--even in the Clinton administration and in the state of WI, one of the most burdened by entitlements--to CUT substantially the entitlement programs is because the resources being distributed are both wasteful and NOT results oriented...mostly about giving money away.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: injest on May 08, 2008, 06:39:24 pm ---I agree with the old saw "Teach a man to fish...." I don't know of many that don't...liberal or conservative.
--- End quote ---
I think most liberals and conservatives agree with the "teach a man to fish" idea, including probably everybody posting on this thread.
The difference to me is that if, for some reason, teaching a man to fish isn't possible, liberals would let him have a fish anyway, and conservatives would make him go hungry. Liberals would assume there's some practical reason he can't fish, conservatives would assume he's lazy.
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on May 08, 2008, 06:43:39 pm ---If you are suggesting that conservatives assume 100% of assistance programs are ineffective and 100% of such program recipients have not benefitted in some way, you are stereotyping the "conservative dogma teaches that liberal programs are all about giving money away"
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---The liberal gives Johnny the answers. Johnny goes out to play.
--- End quote ---
What would YOU conclude, from your own posts?
--- Quote --- it cannot be denied that the extensive desire--even in the Clinton administration and in the state of WI, one of the most burdened by entitlements--to CUT substantially the entitlement programs
--- End quote ---
Well, there you go. Do you consider Bill Clinton a conservative? Do you think of Wisconsin as a conservative state? Or ... is it possible you're stereotyping liberals?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version