How he gonna get his money?

[arkirk]

That 'unique' ability comes from being raised poor.

Even now it would be difficult for me to justify a shoe purchase of more than $100, and the shoes I do own all cost less than that.

I can see nothing that would prompt someone to consume so far above their means - nothing besides stupidity that is.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that stupidity is either rare, or is a choice.

It is neither.

It is possible there are some here in this forum that see you in the same light you seem to use to describe all sorts of people who disagree with you. I for one feel glad you live on a different continent from me.

 

[bilby]

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that stupidity is either rare, or is a choice.

It is neither.

It is possible there are some here in this forum that see you in the same light you seem to use to describe all sorts of people who disagree with you. I for one feel glad you live on a different continent from me.

Are you trying to say that stupidity is rare; or that it is a choice? Or are you simply offering yourself up as an example?

 

[JonA]

That 'unique' ability comes from being raised poor.

Even now it would be difficult for me to justify a shoe purchase of more than $100, and the shoes I do own all cost less than that.

I can see nothing that would prompt someone to consume so far above their means - nothing besides stupidity that is.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that stupidity is either rare, or is a choice.

It is neither.

Stupidity of that sort is indeed a choice.

 

[bilby]

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that stupidity is either rare, or is a choice.

It is neither.

Stupidity of that sort is indeed a choice.

Then it is a very popular one.

 

[arkirk]

It is possible there are some here in this forum that see you in the same light you seem to use to describe all sorts of people who disagree with you. I for one feel glad you live on a different continent from me.

Are you trying to say that stupidity is rare; or that it is a choice? Or are you simply offering yourself up as an example?

I am offering YOU AS AN EXAMPLE....A DAMNED GOOD ONE. You are the one who sees everything in black and white. You see lots of "stupidity" which really is only irrationality in most cases and this can come from smart people experiencing severe stress. I never said it was rare. Lotsa people gorge themselves on special effects movies and popcorn and feel it is their place to defend the indefensible and to assume the commonness of your response to serious conflict to mean you are okay. Just because you are an Atheist you don't have to have these terribly aggressive feelings toward others who may be very different from you...and still be Atheist too. I think you have a belief that your aggressive argumentation somehow protects you. Your arguments are almost always reductionist and frequently use the word stupid to describe anything you do not understand.

 

[bilby]

Are you trying to say that stupidity is rare; or that it is a choice? Or are you simply offering yourself up as an example?

I am offering YOU AS AN EXAMPLE....A DAMNED GOOD ONE. You are the one who sees everything in black and white. You see lots of "stupidity" which really is only irrationality in most cases and this can come from smart people experiencing severe stress. I never said it was rare. Lotsa people gorge themselves on special effects movies and popcorn and feel it is their place to defend the indefensible and to assume the commonness of your response to serious conflict to mean you are okay. Just because you are an Atheist you don't have to have these terribly aggressive feelings toward others who may be very different from you...and still be Atheist too. I think you have a belief that your aggressive argumentation somehow protects you. Your arguments are almost always reductionist and frequently use the word stupid to describe anything you do not understand.

Well I don't understand why you are raising, in this thread, a discussion that clearly belongs in a different thread; It is almost as though you are aggressively seeking conflict with me by chasing be around the discussion board. Why you would do that, I do not understand at all.

I will allow you to draw your own conclusions about how I might describe your behaviour, from my failure to understand it.

 

[Kusa]

If a person breaks into someone else's home to perform any criminal activity, that person deserves to be shot in the head. No exceptions.

 

[arkirk]

This thread presents an argument that is racist on its surface. "How he gonna get his money?" Stealing from the girl who eventually shot him. How is a thread dealing with someone being shot turned into "How he gonna get his money?" A crude attempt to match something that might be dubbed a ghetto dialect. The real issue was life and death. The thread issue was a jovial poking fun at imaginary black people. These cannot possibly be at greater cross purposes. Then somebody starts talking about stupidity. Well yeah! The issue is about how this situation developed and not about stupidity at all, but somehow someone felt they needed to assert human stupidity into the issue. The thought of bright people making emotionally determined errors was never broached and the racist nature of the discussion just seemed to persist. The implication was that people named Trayvon are both black and (as is common in the black community....stupid). I would guess what comes next is that the boy deserved to be shot for being stupid...case closed.

 

[abaddon]

I understand that. But HE DOESN'T. And nor should a reasonable person expect him to. So it is completely irrelevant to any discussion of what to do about the problem of poor people engaging in theft and burglary in an attempt to alleviate their poverty.

There is a pamphlet the NT government hands out to tourists warning about crocodiles. It describes the two species - freshwater and saltwater - and talks at length about how dangerous the salties are; It then says "Freshwater crocodiles are much less dangerous, and rarely attack humans, unless threatened. What constitutes a threat, however, is up to the crocodile".

Poverty IS relative. What constitutes poverty is up to the poor person. You or I are not qualified to decide whether an individual feels 'real desperation'; and pretending that we are, because we don't imagine we would feel desperation in a given situation, is about as useful as saying "But I wasn't threatening you!" to a freshwater crocodile that has a mouthful of your leg.

You say you understand and agree and then keep talking about “their poverty” as if it’s so desperate they’re left with no choice. “Real desperation” isn’t relative. Only the perceived needs are. When I say “real desperation” I mean more quantifiable things like starving…

You had your critique of society, and I tossed mine in, briefly, too. But only I am the erudite philosopher and idealist and you, I guess, are not. You seem to want to fix society by elevating everyone to some level of the middle class; it’s about what “we” can do for “them”. My thoughts on it are a little different: How might some persons with insights encourage a more widespread questioning of the mindfuck manipulations we all endure regarding what it takes to “be somebody” and get realistic and say “No thanks, the simple shoes are enough” and make more realistic assessments of what is needed and also make all our respective neighborhoods of whatever degree of poverty, of whatever “color”, into actual communities.

Seems condescending to think people are so stupid or mindless that the only option is to spoonfeed them their perceived needs so they don’t rob and kill each other. Real material poverty (what I’d called “real desperation”) is lacking life’s essentials like food and shelter. Real ‘spiritual’ poverty is having no chance at more skilled living because of being totally impulse-driven. Just giving the child whatever it wants (if treating poor people as children is the way to go, which is what your stance looks like to me) doesn’t encourage growth. Are the parents all just “give me” people too? Are their spiritual leaders like that too? Or is it all just a ubiquitous cry of “How we gonna get our money?”

If communities are this fractured, and some are driven to rob each other to get clothes when they’re already well-clothed (going by what Trevon’s cousin said in his defense as just an example), then it’s a problem of our whole society, and that’s what I just briefly commented on. I don’t think it was a “so fucking what?” point.

 

[arkirk]

If a person breaks into someone else's home to perform any criminal activity, that person deserves to be shot in the head. No exceptions.

Now there is a real absolutist solution! At least it confines itself to the issue of burglary and shooting and what people deserve on that basis. We have altogether too many shootings of all kinds including these that seem open and shut cases as Kusa would determine.

 

[bilby]

I understand that. But HE DOESN'T. And nor should a reasonable person expect him to. So it is completely irrelevant to any discussion of what to do about the problem of poor people engaging in theft and burglary in an attempt to alleviate their poverty.

There is a pamphlet the NT government hands out to tourists warning about crocodiles. It describes the two species - freshwater and saltwater - and talks at length about how dangerous the salties are; It then says "Freshwater crocodiles are much less dangerous, and rarely attack humans, unless threatened. What constitutes a threat, however, is up to the crocodile".

Poverty IS relative. What constitutes poverty is up to the poor person. You or I are not qualified to decide whether an individual feels 'real desperation'; and pretending that we are, because we don't imagine we would feel desperation in a given situation, is about as useful as saying "But I wasn't threatening you!" to a freshwater crocodile that has a mouthful of your leg.

You say you understand and agree and then keep talking about “their poverty” as if it’s so desperate they’re left with no choice. “Real desperation” isn’t relative. Only the perceived needs are. When I say “real desperation” I mean more quantifiable things like starving…

But desperation isn't a quantifiable thing; it is an emotional state. When you conflate the two, it is unsurprising that you reach sub-obtimal conclusions about what should be done.

You had your critique of society, and I tossed mine in, briefly, too. But only I am the erudite philosopher and idealist and you, I guess, are not. You seem to want to fix society by elevating everyone to some level of the middle class; it’s about what “we” can do for “them”. My thoughts on it are a little different: How might some persons with insights encourage a more widespread questioning of the mindfuck manipulations we all endure regarding what it takes to “be somebody” and get realistic and say “No thanks, the simple shoes are enough” and make more realistic assessments of what is needed and also make all our respective neighborhoods of whatever degree of poverty, of whatever “color”, into actual communities.

Your thoughts and mine on what we want coincide more than you seem to think; where we differ is not in our desired outcome, but in our recomended mechanism to achieve that outcome. If we achieve one of the objectives you contrast here - raising everyone to some level of the middle class; or making all neighbourhoods into actual communities - then the other will likely happen as a result.

Seems condescending to think people are so stupid or mindless that the only option is to spoonfeed them their perceived needs so they don’t rob and kill each other.

And it is demonstrably ineffective to deny them those perceived needs and expect them to just accept their lot.

Real material poverty (what I’d called “real desperation”) is lacking life’s essentials like food and shelter.

Sure; but real poverty is not necessary for real desperation, because one is a physical objective condition, and the other is an emotional and subjective one.

Real ‘spiritual’ poverty is having no chance at more skilled living because of being totally impulse-driven. Just giving the child whatever it wants (if treating poor people as children is the way to go, which is what your stance looks like to me) doesn’t encourage growth. Are the parents all just “give me” people too? Are their spiritual leaders like that too? Or is it all just a ubiquitous cry of “How we gonna get our money?”

I would prefer not to just give people stuff; It is the second worst option, after 'not giving people stuff'. But these are the ONLY two options if your society doesn't provide as many jobs as there are people who need work; so it's the lesser of two evils.

That's the crux of this issue; Sure, any given individual could have tried harder at school, made something of his life, and got a good job. But there are fewer vacancies than there are unemployed people; so what is potentially true for any given individual, is NOT true for ALL individuals - if everyone with no job goes gets a high school diploma, then you will need a degree to get a job; if everyone goes and gets a bachelor's degree, then a masters will become the minimum requirement; no matter how much effort people put into self improvement, the least employable will remain unemployed. And then we act all surprised when people who start life with disadvantages in the job market can't be bothered to join in the game. Why play the game when it is rigged against you?

If communities are this fractured, and some are driven to rob each other to get clothes when they’re already well-clothed (going by what Trevon’s cousin said in his defense as just an example), then it’s a problem of our whole society, and that’s what I just briefly commented on. I don’t think it was a “so fucking what?” point.

Well unless you think that this observation somehow implies a clear solution, it is.

And I don't see that solution.

You said:

Poor and rich, and everyone in between, are taught via product marketing that the meaningfulness of their lives is not in a quality relation with self and community but in acquiring "nice stuff" and establishing a social status that way. In first world nations, "poor" most usually means "not enough 'nice stuff'."

I agree; but what are we supposed to DO in response to this insight? Are we going to insulate people from marketing? If so, how?

 

[JonA]

This thread presents an argument that is racist on its surface. "How he gonna get his money?" Stealing from the girl who eventually shot him. How is a thread dealing with someone being shot turned into "How he gonna get his money?" A crude attempt to match something that might be dubbed a ghetto dialect. The real issue was life and death. The thread issue was a jovial poking fun at imaginary black people.

The phrase that forms the title of this thread is straight from the mouth of the burglar's cousin.

I imagine Derec chose it as a focus because he felt it embodied what he sees as some people's overzealousness in defending criminal behavior on the basis of made up nonsense.

The thought of bright people making emotionally determined errors was never broached and the racist nature of the discussion just seemed to persist.

What racism? I thought most of the excuses given have focused on poverty not the burglar's race.

The implication was that people named Trayvon are both black and (as is common in the black community....stupid).

'Implications' it seems only you can see.

I think the implications people draw out of what they read and hear often say more about them than they do about the authors of the words.

 

[ronburgundy]

How does one properly give ranking to the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Life is a neccessary precondition for all other rights, so it is by far of greatest importance, and note that not having your TV stolen isn't even on that list. One still has 99.999999% of their liberty and ability to pursue happiness if one of your numerous possessions is stolen. Where one has lost life, all liberty and all pursuit of happiness when someone kills you.

 

[JonA]

How does one properly give ranking to the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

One still has 99.999999% of their liberty and ability to pursue happiness if one of your numerous possessions is stolen.

That's entirely subjective, no?

Your opinion and nothing more.

Only Jenrette knows how much happiness her TV brought her.

 

[Derec]

Where one has lost life, all liberty and all pursuit of happiness when someone kills you.

He should have thought about that risk before he decided that breaking into houses was a good way to make money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Assuming your shoes are like the ones you posted about before and not some baller branded sneakers, again, completely different thing and you know it.

What's this two and three hundred dollar nonsense?

Anything above $50 is way too much money for a college kid to be spending on shoes.

Yeah. I've spent $50 on shoes before because my big feet don't give me much choice. Cheaper shoes simply don't come in my size.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Part of the tragedy of the young man’s death is it’s possible for young people to learn from their wrongs. But what helps that along when it happens, and maybe is essential, is family and friends who'll say “Doing that is wrong so don't ever do it”.

The excuses for Trevon like those from his cousin, if that's the sort of crap he heard while still alive, helped doom him. If they justify burglary by saying he’s gotta “get his money” then it’s a crap message to send out to relatives and neighbors. It doesn’t take erudite philosophy, just some bit of thinking in place of impulsing.

The difference between a young man that turned his life around and the ones that don't are the support in their communities: the former was castigated for burgling, people were on his case about it. He stopped burgling not because he was given “his money” but because he made a choice not to burgle anymore. Trevon wasn’t likely to make that change because, had he lived, he didn’t have that kind of support; instead he had people who are open to justifying stealing.

Yup. What we are seeing is the criminal culture. They don't see what they do as wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

You're unique in having distinguished between real needs and perceived needs.

That 'unique' ability comes from being raised poor.

Even now it would be difficult for me to justify a shoe purchase of more than $100, and the shoes I do own all cost less than that.

I can see nothing that would prompt someone to consume so far above their means - nothing besides stupidity that is.

I wasn't raised poor, just raised to be careful with money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a person breaks into someone else's home to perform any criminal activity, that person deserves to be shot in the head. No exceptions.

Disagree. Burglary doesn't warrant the death penalty.

However, if a homeowner feels threatened and shoots so be it.

 

[Derec]

This thread presents an argument that is racist on its surface.

How so?

"How he gonna get his money?"

Those words were not by me, I was merely quoting the burglar's cousin, Nautica Harris.

Stealing from the girl who eventually shot him.

Well, middle aged woman. But do you think stealing is a legitimate way to make money?

How is a thread dealing with someone being shot turned into "How he gonna get his money?"

It started with that focus, hence the title. It was about justification of thievery by Trevon's cousin, a sentiment that is not uncommon but is rarely expressed so poignantly and succinctly. "How he gonna get his money", indeed!

A crude attempt to match something that might be dubbed a ghetto dialect.

No, a verbatim quote.

The real issue was life and death. The thread issue was a jovial poking fun at imaginary black people.

What imaginary black people?

These cannot possibly be at greater cross purposes. Then somebody starts talking about stupidity. Well yeah! The issue is about how this situation developed and not about stupidity at all, but somehow someone felt they needed to assert human stupidity into the issue. The thought of bright people making emotionally determined errors was never broached and the racist nature of the discussion just seemed to persist. The implication was that people named Trayvon are both black and (as is common in the black community....stupid). I would guess what comes next is that the boy deserved to be shot for being stupid...case closed.

There are stupid people of all races. This genius was white. He became white meat.
And while I do not think stupid people deserve to be shot, sometimes when you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Like catching a bullet or becoming an alligator's lunch.

 

[Derec]

If a person breaks into someone else's home to perform any criminal activity, that person deserves to be shot in the head. No exceptions.

I would disagree about that. It's not about deserving, it's about foreseeable consequences.
However, burglars can still be murdered.
Man to spend life in prison for killing teens in burglary