Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

I hate the rich. I just cannot wait for total anarchy so we can bar-b-que the bastards and eat them. You know they must be tender and tasty. I'll eat their livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti. Paris Hilton is too skinny to eat. Make jerky out of her.

---

Some of the riches started as poor then they work really hard to achieve their wealth so don't judge them based on their income level. You never know,maybe those rich do charity helping others and have a lot of responsibility for his/her family. Not all riches are materialistic, some of them live frugally, and sending money to their family relatives who need it more than she does. :)
I hate the rich who don't work hard, like the spoiled rich kids, who don't understand the dollar value of money.

Even the so-called "idle rich" give value added to society.

The Hiltons are a perfect example. If not for their wealth, for their family's hotel empire, how many people would be unemployed in the hotel services industry? The Hilton companies have tens of thousands of employees. Take away the Hilton companies, and tens of thousands of people go unemployed. Plus think of all the others that are supported by the Hilton companies: outside contactors that do repairs and maintenance to the hotels that the in-house staff can't, elevator companies, computer providers, internet companies, telecom providers and maintenance people, restaurants, electricians, lighbulb manufacturers, glass and window companies, food wholesalers, toiletries manufacturers, key-card manufacturers, etc.

Being angry at or hating the rich is unproductive. The rich are the ones who provide jobs to everyone else. Not to mention the fact that they foot 80%+ of the tax bill of the US government.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Even the so-called "idle rich" give value added to society.

The Hiltons are a perfect example. If not for their wealth, for their family's hotel empire, how many people would be unemployed in the hotel services industry? The Hilton companies have tens of thousands of employees. Take away the Hilton companies, and tens of thousands of people go unemployed. Plus think of all the others that are supported by the Hilton companies: outside contactors that do repairs and maintenance to the hotels that the in-house staff can't, elevator companies, computer providers, internet companies, telecom providers and maintenance people, restaurants, electricians, lighbulb manufacturers, glass and window companies, food wholesalers, toiletries manufacturers, key-card manufacturers, etc.

Being angry at or hating the rich is unproductive. The rich are the ones who provide jobs to everyone else. Not to mention the fact that they foot 80%+ of the tax bill of the US government.

Elliot

---

That's a terrible argument, Elliot; supply and demand would have provided the hotel space needed. Instead of one owner there may have been been its place twenty or thirty separate owners, whatever the case, demand for hotel space would have been supplied by someone.

I wonder who would gather the food if not for the poor?

DC,

By who? If thee were no rich people to buy the space, develop the hotel and run the hotel, who would provide the hotel space? Yeah, their names may have been Smith, Jones and Williams instead of Hilton. Yeah, none of them may have been quite as big as hilton. But they would still be rich from operating the business, and they would still need to have capital (investment wealth) to start the business, and continued cash-flow (available income) in order to run the business. They would still be the ones employing thousands of people. And they would still be rich. You can't escape wealth in a capitalist society. Being angry at rich people for being rich is pointless.

Tell me... how many people are supported by jobs created by the poor? That's not a reason to dislike the poor. But we need to understand where jobs to help the poor come from.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

DC,

By who? If thee were no rich people to buy the space, develop the hotel and run the hotel, who would provide the hotel space? Yeah, their names may have been Smith, Jones and Williams instead of Hilton. Yeah, none of them may have been quite as big as hilton. But they would still be rich from operating the business, and they would still need to have capital (investment wealth) to start the business, and continued cash-flow (available income) in order to run the business. They would still be the ones employing thousands of people. And they would still be rich. You can't escape wealth in a capitalist society. Being angry at rich people for being rich is pointless.

Tell me... how many people are supported by jobs created by the poor? That's not a reason to dislike the poor. But we need to understand where jobs to help the poor come from.

Elliot

---

There are not just two classes of people, Elliot. There are all sorts of adjectives you can place in front of each of those nouns. What you have said here does not change the terrible argument in the previous post…now come on…:rolleyes:

My post stating that I hate the rich was simply an illustration to show how very moronic it is to pick any scocio-economic class and choose to hate them. To hate anyone is really a useless, nonproductive endeavor. Especially when one should be utilizing one's time building wealth or dumpster diving. Take your choice because it really is YOUR choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

There are not just two classes of people, Elliot. There are all sorts of adjectives you can place in front of each of those nouns. What you have said here does not change the terrible argument in the previous post…now come on…:rolleyes:

---

Don't you see, DC, in a world where anyone earning more than $80,000 is considered "rich" and anyone earning less than $40,000 is considered poor, there's no room for a middle class. In that scenario, which is the one presented by the liberals, there really is only a two-class system of "rich" and "poor".

The point is that rich people create jobs. Poor people do not. Eliminate some of the rich, and they will indeed be replaced by others who will also be rich. But if you eliminate the entire rich class, the result will not be more people who become rich. The result will instead be a single class of unemployed poor people.

So the so-called "idle rich" who own the businesses are the majo source of jobs in this country. Period. There is no denying that fact. Eliminating them will eliminate those jobs they created. Ergo, we need the rich. Railing against them is pointless and detrimental.

Elliot

Ahhh yes but, if Hilary creates a socialistic health care system, thousands of politicians and bureaucrats will become rich. Now that's spreading it around or, the trickle down effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Don't you see, DC, in a world where anyone earning more than $80,000 is considered "rich" and anyone earning less than $40,000 is considered poor, there's no room for a middle class. In that scenario, which is the one presented by the liberals, there really is only a two-class system of "rich" and "poor".

The point is that rich people create jobs. Poor people do not. Eliminate some of the rich, and they will indeed be replaced by others who will also be rich. But if you eliminate the entire rich class, the result will not be more people who become rich. The result will instead be a single class of unemployed poor people.

So the so-called "idle rich" who own the businesses are the majo source of jobs in this country. Period. There is no denying that fact. Eliminating them will eliminate those jobs they created. Ergo, we need the rich. Railing against them is pointless and detrimental.

Elliot

---

Poor and rich are relative terms and to make a distinction between them as you have negates the whole history surrounding the meaning of the terms.
Anatole France, one of my favorite authors, wrote in the Red Lily:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
There is an example of poor and $40,000 a year requires no begging in the streets, stealing bread or sleeping under bridges.
And an income of $80,000 won’t get you into your own home in most places in the U.S.
The idle rich is not a requirement for providing employment; supply and demand in a free market is what creates jobs…period. :)

The fact that this debate is allowed on this forum has absolutely floored me. This is utterly disgusting. If you look at the original post, it looks like that of a white supremest from 60 years ago. The fact that after all these years people are still putting a value on everyone else, whether it be their race, size, or how big their wallet is. You should be completely ashamed of yourselves for being so narrow-minded as to classify one group of people and hate them and want to abolish them. For the ones that feel the same way as the original poster, I hope with everything in me you were born in a ghetto, broke free of all temptations of the easy ways out, and are now a multi-millionaire. If not, may God, Allah, or whatever you believe, have mercy on your soul for being so cruel. Hasn't anyone ever told you that it doesn't matter how much money someone makes or how big their house is, truly bad people exist in every part of the world, in every social status. And being poor does not make some one bad. I'm glad to see that none of you have ever made a choice or mistake that lead you down the wrong path in your life, because you should feel very lucky. I'm sure it's very easy to sit behind your computer and feel like a big person by bringing others down. I have read a lot of these posts and frankly, I hope those of you (you know who you are) who sit there and quarrel over how bad society is with people on the internet, that when you finally log off, you actually go down to your local homeless shelter or battered women's center and spend the rest of your days there. I hope you find that those people made choices that you easily could have made. You could be sitting right there with them. And you should not feel better or smarter than them, you should count your blessings and help them with everything you can. Pretty much what I'm saying here is get off your arrogant arses and actually do something with all this energy you waste on complaining. After all, no matter how rich or well off you are, when you die, you can't take any of it with you. The only thing you can take is your pride in knowing that YOU helped make the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Dark_crow disagrees: You obviously have not read enough of the post…go back to go and start again

---

No, kind Sir, I read everything. Even the horrible things that come out of your head.

Quote:

---

There are far too many people who have nothing to lose. They go through generations with no decent jobs, no decent education, and no prospect of anything better. Is it any wonder they lack motivation and self worth.

Who created the urban ghettos, maybe that is the place to start?

---

Yes, and there are far too many people like you who like to put themselves on a pedestal because they have excessive self worth.

Quote:

---

I make my distinction between the working class and the underclass (poor). I prefer a world in which everybody is given a fair chance to make something of themselves. Where everybody has got something to lose. The poor can never be the engine of their own social change because they have nothing to lose. They never have been, they never will be. Only the rich can be the engine of social change.

---

Do you feel this way because the only thing you think you can lose is material things? Do you think poor people never felt the heartache of losing a loved-one? Do you feel that losing your car or house causes the same feelings as losing a person you care about?
I'm not sure how to solve your problem that you have with poor people. Maybe you should move to Antarctica. I hear there are no poor people there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashleysb

No, kind Sir, I read everything. Even the horrible things that come out of your head.

Yes, and there are far too many people like you who like to put themselves on a pedestal because they have excessive self worth.

Do you feel this way because the only thing you think you can lose is material things? Do you think poor people never felt the heartache of losing a loved-one? Do you feel that losing your car or house causes the same feelings as losing a person you care about?
I'm not sure how to solve your problem that you have with poor people. Maybe you should move to Antarctica. I hear there are no poor people there.

---

Look who dropped in and started attacking who; you're the one climbing up a pedestal and ripped into me. My position has been that there should not be a poor person in America, and if you had bothered to find out anything about me you would know that. You just began making assumptions without even so much as asking me for clarification on points you felt were somehow 'Bad' in your mind.

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those that have much: it is whether we provide enough to those who have too little.
Franklin D Roosevelt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

If the poor is as large a percentage of the population as many say, think of the tremendous power in their hands if they all simply register to vote and DO IT. That in itself could be tremendously constructive.

On the flip side, if we handed them all copies of some Karl Marx reading material.....

---

You’ve taken us to the larger problem and that is ‘Illiteracy’; so many of the poor are just plain illiterate, to illiterate to vote.

As I have said before, I am surrounded by poor day in and day out and no matter how messed up they are I have only known 3 illiterate people in my life.
It is not a problem of being illiterate as much as being dumbed down by the schools.
Have you ever watched Jay Leno's Jay walking? He asks questions that anybody with an education should be able to answer and they can't! AND they DO NOT even look like poor America!
I AM poor and more intelligent than most of the middle to upper class that can't even tell you whether the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the West Coast or what state the Golden Gate Bridge is in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

You’ve taken us to the larger problem and that is ‘Illiteracy’; so many of the poor are just plain illiterate, to illiterate to vote.

---

Not sure about the stats on that, but there are other reasons the poor don't vote. Americans don't value their right to vote - we treat it like a chore. I have several South African friends who get so angry at election time that people don't go vote. In SA people would literally walk for miles (uphill, both ways!) and stand in long lines for the opportunity to vote. One of the most political people at my last job wasn't even registered (he was in his 40's). Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count, or that it doesn't make a difference. Also, because of the education and governmental experiences many poor people have had, they think the govt is too big to take on, there's a sense of defeat. That's one problem that plagues much of Africa as to why the govts in most of the countries are so screwed up - for generations you are taught you can't make a difference, they have power, you don't. You don't think or realize you can TAKE that power from someone and GIVE it to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

As I have said before, I am surrounded by poor day in and day out and no matter how messed up they are I have only known 3 illiterate people in my life.
It is not a problem of being illiterate as much as being dumbed down by the schools.
Have you ever watched Jay Leno's Jay walking? He asks questions that anybody with an education should be able to answer and they can't! AND they DO NOT even look like poor America!
I AM poor and more intelligent than most of the middle to upper class that can't even tell you whether the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the West Coast or what state the Golden Gate Bridge is in.

---

You're probably going by the 'read and write' definition of Illiteracy and that is not the definition I'm using. “There are various definitions of literacy. Governments may label individuals who can read a couple of thousand simple words they learned by sight in the first four grades in school as literate. But the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government proves that such adults are functionally illiterate--they cannot read well enough to hold a good job. Several studies have shown that millions of Americans never read another book after leaving school.”

Literacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I didn't imply nor mean Illiteracy' was the only reason people don't vote, some probably do.

Jillian I believe a case could be made that the percentages of eligible voters exercising the franchise began to decline as the right to the franchise increased.

Voter turnout in the presidential election of 1916 was 61.9 percent. Then, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving the vote to women. Voter turnout in that year's presidential election was 49.2 percent. The Voting Rights Act, ensuring access to the polls for blacks, was passed in 1965. Voter turnout went from 63.3 percent in 1964 to 62.5 percent in 1968. And after the voting age was lowered to 18, in 1971, voter turnout took a further dip, to 56.4 percent in the 1972 presidential election.

"Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count"

In a dem. State that I live in,with Chicago votes(and Springfield for that matter)How much does my piddly vote really count?

I am in the remote areas,"We" are few,THEY are many,Please explain my motivation to go vote for someone who isn't going to make office,and I still have to put up with the Dem,thought processes.

Help Me If You Can,

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

"Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count"

In a dem. state that I live in,with Chicago votes(and Springfield for that matter)How much does my piddly vote really count?

I am in the remote areas,"We" are few,THEY are many,Please explain my motivation to go vote for someone who isn't going to make office,and I still have to put up with the Dem,thought processes.

Help Me If You Can,

Ken

---

If the republicans (you, I presume) don’t vote it will always remain a Democrat controlled environment…why isn’t that an incentive to vote.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

"Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count"

In a dem. state that I live in,with Chicago votes(and Springfield for that matter)How much does my piddly vote really count?

I am in the remote areas,"We" are few,THEY are many,Please explain my motivation to go vote for someone who isn't going to make office,and I still have to put up with the Dem,thought processes.

Help Me If You Can,

Ken

---

As tom said in his agree to you; start at the local level. Most people only vote in the presidential elections, that has very little effect on your daily life in your state when compared to your state and local leaders. For example, the federal govt is not doing anything about the issue of illegal immigration. My state is not doing much in the way about it either. But my LOCAL govt is trying to pass legislation which will make an impact. That affects my daily life. If my county rep moves up the ladder, eventually I can see a difference made in the areas I value.

Further, what if all the people who have your political views (republican, I guess) have your same attitude? "Too many liberals, no point in voting" Well if you never put up a fight, of course the liberals will win! But again, if you want to see small changes, start on the local level.

I live in Virginia. We are consistently red. But amazingly, we have a democratic governor. How did it happen? Liberals went and voted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

If the republicans (you, I presume) don’t vote it will always remain a Democrat controlled environment…why isn’t that an incentive to vote.:)

---

I do vote,in ALL elections(just to clear that up)

But for the people who don't write(or want to be labeled even in here)I brought the question to light.

My big hang-up is the 'friends'I have whether they be dems,or republicans,are at a loss to explain what their incentive really is to go and vote.

WE ALL KNOW THIS IS NOT JUST A LOCAL THING,ITS VERY MUCH NATIONWIDE!

Do the poor,uneducated people in society really have a reason to vote?Is a change in office really going to impact their lives,YES? Try telling them that.

What they hear is what we all hear,the hype spilled out over the same airwaves(TV etc) as we do,Just the perspective and lack of true education in the 'big picture'

How would Hillery make My LIFE better than Fred?

How did Bill make my business prosper when George Killed it entirely?

This is the big picture,for my world.

Does educating,incarcerating,or belittling the vast majority of the USA's society make the people in office do anything different?HE** NO. They are going to do whatever they feel like doing,regardless of the people that voted them in(OH yeah,we can vote them out,Right?) And then a new revised form of crooked leader arises in their absence.

Again,why do we vote? What's the point? To wait for a state rep. to advance through the ranks till he(or she) is also corrupt?

Even at the local levels it is all too prevalent,News of Money Laundering/Mishandling,, etc

And then the next idea,"If you don't like it,run for office yourself,change the system if its so broken,Quit complaining if you are not going to fix it"

I am ranting I know,too much info B4 dinner,I'll post more later(when I have settled down some)

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.

---

I am poor because I grew up in the foster care system. I work 2 jobs to pay my rent. I work over 60 hours every week and am barely scraping by. There are people who are lazy and choose to be poor, but there are many, many more people who work hard to make ends meet, while still below a certain income bracket. Not everyone who is poor is lacking motivation. I am teaching myself spanish while working at one job (where I have a lot of free time) so that someday I can get a job as a translator. I can't afford to go to college. When I turned 18, I was on my own. I lived with a friend until I saved enough for an apartment. Even then, I had to pay by the week because I had no one to co-sign for me. I may be poor, but I am an intellegent, hard working, decent woman with big dreams. I don't care how hard I have to work to get where I want to be, I know I can do it. You should consider volunteering at a local charity for a week, like a homeless shelter, food pantry, etc. If you talk to the people you meet there, I think you will find that most of them are very decent, they are just having a hard time at the moment. It is easy to generalize groups of people. You must remember that every poor person has a story and everyone is different. Not everyone fits inside the "lazy" box. I hope you will consider that not everyone who is struggling financially is a piece of crap. Someone else in history referred to groups of people as an abomination-Hitler.

Now that things have slowed down on this question,I have been a subscriber to this thread since it appeared and wonder if it is appropriate to start threads with such a bold semi-clear sarcasm? I understand the point of trying to add shock value, and boost the discussion with a little unnecessary controversy, but what if someone were to do the same type of opening with other sensitive topics? Example: I hate black people...

Quote:

---

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?
What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.

---

I'm not trying to start a war, as I have been enjoying this thread and have looked at all of the posts. It is just something that I think could go too far if more people were to do it.

KBC you make some good points about people not voting because they think the system is too corrupt and both parites just makes things worse. I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about that except for MORE people going and voting the sleezy scumbags out of office. I think if the general public knew how important voting is, and the politicians knew that if they screw up they get the boot, maybe things would change. Probably not quickly, and the gubment will never be free of corruption, but it could certainly have a lot less! To me it's all about education. There are so many problems which could be fixed/lessened with proper education to our general public and in particular, our youths. Miss South Carolina was right, we need more maps for the Iraq and South Africa and such as. After watching the View a few weeks ago I think we need more globes too... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Quinn

Now that things have slowed down on this question,I have been a a subscriber to this thread since it appeared and wonder if it is appropriate to start threads with such a bold semi-clear sarcasm? I understand the point of trying to add shock value, and boost the discussion with a little unnecessary controversy, but what if someone were to do the same type of opening with other sensitive topics? Example: I hate black people... I'm not trying to start a war, as I have been enjoying this thread and have looked at all of the posts. It is just something that I think could go too far if more people were to do it.

---

It would be a category mistake to compare the two questions.

Would you define the poor as a people?

The term 'Black people' is an objective term. The term 'poor people' is a subjective term….a different category of reasoning.

Not realizing that difference could get a person on the 'slippery slope' you allude to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

The term 'Black people' is an objective term. The term 'poor people' is a subjective term….a different category of reasoning.

Not realizing that difference could get a person on the 'slippery slope' you allude to.

---

I'm sorry but GregQuin is correct. Darkcrow, you are not being logical here, but only giving an illusion of logic by purposely misinterpreting what GregQuin has said.

That "black people" can be VIEWED subjectively, just as poor people can be viewed subjectively! So what you wrote above is actually attacking a distorted version of Greg's argument! Now let's take a look at what Greg was saying:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Quinn

I understand the point of trying to add shock value, and boost the discussion with a little unnecessary controversy, but what if someone were to do the same type of opening with other sensitive topics? Example: I hate black people... I'm not trying to start a war, as I have been enjoying this thread and have looked at all of the posts. It is just something that I think could go too far if more people were to do it.

---

See? Greg Quinn made an excellent point, but you've decided to use a strawman fallacy instead of thanking him. You're choosing to ignore the actual position of Greg's argument by misrepresenting it and distorting the message. Too bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sad Soul

I'm sorry but GregQuin is correct. Darkcrow, you are not being logical here, but only giving an illusion of logic by purposely misinterpreting what GregQuin has said.

The fact of the matter is that "black people" can be VIEWED subjectively, just as poor people can be viewed subjectively! So what you wrote above is actually attacking a distorted version of Greg's argument! Now let's take a look at what Greg was saying:



See? Greg Quinn made an excellent point, but you've decided to use a strawman fallacy instead of thanking him. You're choosing to ignore the actual position of Greg's argument by misrepresenting it and distorting the message. Too bad...

---

Everything can be viewed subjectively, in the sense that our thoughts are our own and therefore subjective. Even though 'Black Race' is a social construct it is one that has been written into the laws of this country, try and tell the NAACP, or argue in a Court of Law in a discrimination case, that being Black is purely subjective.

I could use a thousand sensitive examples that would still be deemed inappropriate used as your topic. Objective, subjective. It doesn't matter. You can pick at straws all you want, it really is just a very simple observation that I thought I would share. I can think of the poor as a social construct, I also think the deaf and hard of hearing are as well. And so you know there are a lot of laws pertaining to the poor as well, I guess they are a social construct. But, that is really just leading it all away from the point, ethics on ask me help desk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Quinn

I could use a thousand sensitive examples that would still be deemed inappropriate used as your topic. Objective, subjective. It doesn't matter. You can pick at straws all you want, it really is just a very simple observation that I thought I would share. I can think of the poor as a social construct, I also think the deaf and hard of hearing are as well. And so you know there are a lot of laws pertaining to the poor as well, I guess they are a social construct. But, that is really just leading it all away from the point, ethics on ask me help desk

---

Tell the deaf their inability to hear is just a social construction and not a, ‘state of being’…:)... never-mind, they really can’t hear you in spite of what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Tell the deaf their inability to hear is just a social construction and not a, ‘state of being’…:) ...never-mind, they really can’t hear you in spite of what you think.

---

The students of Gauladet, who tend to be deaf activists, would take exception to your statement, DC. They believe that deafness is indeed a "state of being" imposed on them by society, and that the rest of the world should accommodate them by learning to sign, rather than them learning to speak and read lips. The fact that they have a "disability" is imposed on them by a hearing society, and if society just would cater to them by becoming sign-proficient and stop being so "hearing-centric", they wouldn't be disabled at all.

I happen to think they're nuts, but the point is that "subjectivity" is subjective. The idea that something that you see as an objective situation may be seen by others as subjective.

I have another friend who is deaf who never learned to sign. He reads lips very well and speaks with a distinct slur in his speech, but is generally understandable. He does everything you do, and probably more. He has a black belt in Karate, works as a successful architect, dives, is married with a wife and perfectly normal hearing kids, and doesn't sign. Is he disabled? He doesn't think so. So we have another deaf person who doesn't see things with the same objectivity that you do, but rather sees deafness as a subjective thing. He comes to the same conclusion as the Gauladet activists, but for exactly the opposite reasons. (PS: his sister, who is also deaf, is in the same boat. Married with 5 kids, she's a dental hygenist, graduated from her college suma laud, despite the fact that she's deaf, and she never learned to sign. So his is not an isolated case.)

So you see that what you see as an objective state is not necessarily so. People can interpret it subjectively. Just as "blackness" and "poverty" are subjective issues.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The students of Gauladet, who tend to be deaf activists, would take exception to your statement, DC. They believe that deafness is indeed a "state of being" imposed on them by society, and that the rest of the world should accomodate them by learning to sign, rather than them learning to speak and read lips. The fact that they have a "disability" is imposed on them by a hearing society, and if society just would cater to them by becoming sign-proficient and stop being so "hearing-centric", they wouldn't be disabled at all.

I happen to think they're nuts, but the point is that "subjectivity" is subjective. The idea that something that you see as an objective situation may be seen by others as subjective.

I have another friend who is deaf who never learned to sign. He reads lips very well and speaks with a distinct slur in his speech, but is generally understandable. He does everything you do, and probably more. He has a black belt in Karate, works as a successful architect, dives, is married with a wife and perfectly normal hearing kids, and doesn't sign. Is he disabled? He doesn't think so. So we have another deaf person who doesn't see things with the same objectivity that you do, but rather sees deafness as a subjective thing. He comes to the same conclusion as the Gauladet activists, but for exactly the opposite reasons. (PS: his sister, who is also deaf, is in the exact same boat. Married with 5 kids, she's a dental hygenist, graduated from her college suma laud, despite the fact that she's deaf, and she never learned to sign. So his is not an isolated case.)

So you see that what you see as an objective state is not necessarily so. People can interpret it subjectively. Just as "blackness" and "poverty" are subjective issues.

Elliot

---

Well isn't this a twist of events; you speaking philosophically.:) Yes, color is subjective, and guess what, reality coming to the retina's is upside down and fragmented, so it can be said that reality is completely subjective. But that the Black Caucus in congress has no problem distinguishing Black.

Rep. Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Rep. Cohen's complaint about not admitting whites:

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

I have shown my friend your thread and the argument, she says that dark crow has taken an economics course and has decided to go berserk. I said " I know" and it is really sad that he can't use his powers for good and not just his only silly defence.

Quote:

---

Dark_Crow--Tell the deaf their inability to hear is just a social construction and not a, 'state of being'…... never-mind, they really can't hear you in spite of what you think

---

I underlined it for you, I never said just. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.

---

You were obviously born with a silver spoon in your mouth!! Eveyones entitled to their own opinion of course but try looking at it from there point of view before calling them "cancer"!!

>Thread Closed<