Sign in to follow this  
2ndRateMind

So, I'll be posting less often, now.

Recommended Posts

Guest

 

But the overwhelming opposition I have received on this forum to any idea of the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor inclines me to one of two conclusions:

 

a: You do not perceive the injustice in the way wealth is currently distributed, or

b: You do perceive it, but do not care, or care sufficiently to do anything about it.

 

I don't know how else we can say this in so many ways so that you can understand it...  but, YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN.

 

We understand social injustice just fine.  But we put more importance to FREEDOM OF CHOICE than social status.  Therefore, any solution that you put forth that hinders freedom of choice is not going to be a good one.

 

We are not all rich.  But you are rich.  But we are not going to grab your money to give to somebody.  Instead, we will give you a Book of Mormon, send you Missionaries, encourage you to listen to General Conference so that hopefully you will learn the lessons of the gospel and apply it to your life so that YOU WILL CHOOSE TO SERVE SOMEBODY.  If you still refuse to do so, then we leave you to the grace of God.

 

As for us, we have incorporated service into the Mormon Lifestyle.  It is very difficult to be active Mormons and not want to serve (not just time but also money... and even skill/trade/talents/etc.).  But each and every Mormon serves according to their FREE WILL.  Some are like the Duty-Free Billionaire Dude whose aim in life is to bounce his last check before he dies - giving away every single penny... while others prefer to "keep it in the family" and hand down the money as a legacy... while others prefer to build bigger malls with their money that gives jobs to more people...

 

You are very narrow minded.  You think unless everybody has the same amount of money, then people will not be happy.  None of our principles doesn't ever give a blip of merit to you unless it results in everybody having the same amount of money.  You need to get out more.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how else we can say this in so many ways so that you can understand it...  but, YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN.

 

We understand social injustice just fine.  But we put more importance to FREEDOM OF CHOICE than social status.  Therefore, any solution that you put forth that hinders freedom of choice is not going to be a good one.

 

We are not all rich.  But you are rich.  But we are not going to grab your money to give to somebody.  Instead, we will give you a Book of Mormon, send you Missionaries, encourage you to listen to General Conference so that hopefully you will learn the lessons of the gospel and apply it to your life so that YOU WILL CHOOSE TO SERVE SOMEBODY.  If you still refuse to do so, then we leave you to the grace of God.

 

As for us, we have incorporated service into the Mormon Lifestyle.  It is very difficult to be active Mormons and not want to serve (not just time but also money... and even skill/trade/talents/etc.).

 

You are very narrow minded.  You think unless everybody has the same amount of money, then people will not be happy.  You need to get out more.

 

 

So, I need to get out more. I'm quite sure that's true!

 

But as regards freedom of choice v social justice. Well, I'm a great believer in both. We just need to find a way to reconcile the two, it seems, to arrive at some agreement. Right now, we have a situation where the freedom for the pike is death for the minnow, and I find myself wholly in support of the minnow, and you find yourself wholly in support of the pike.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So, I need to get out more. I'm quite sure that's true!

 

But as regards freedom of choice v social justice. Well, I'm a great believer in both. We just need to find a way to reconcile the two, it seems, to arrive at some agreement. Right now, we have a situation where the freedom for the pike is death for the minnow, and I find myself wholly in support of the minnow, and you find yourself wholly in support of the pike.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I'm not wholly in support of the pike.  I'm wholly in support for the FREEDOM OF CHOICE of both minnow and pike.  I don't really know how else to explain this to you.  If the life of the minnow is bought by robbing the pike of his freedom, I'm not going to support the minnow.  Same if the pike's life was bought by robbing the minnow of his freedom.

 

The minnow's life is Eternal.  You may think him a minnow, but I see him as a Saint.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news everyone! The problem is solved!

 

Last year President Obama donated almost $60k of his $500k income as "gifts to charity". That's 12%!

The Clintons, back in 2000, donated $10.2M of their $109M income. That's a little more than 9%!

Back in 2011, the Romneys donated $4M of their $20.9M income. That's 19%!

 

So it looks like wealthy people are contributing MORE than the 4% needed to solve the problem of poverty.

 

I like this thread too much to see it die. So what do you guys think? Why are we still hearing about poverty when it clearly doesn't exist anymore? Is it a 1984-style propaganda thing? An effort to maintain control and power? Is it because we all need a common enemy to unite us? Or are we simply uncomfortable with an abundant world? If this truth were to get out, would we star-belly sneetch a selection of us so we could still have problems in paradise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, people. So, my new year's resolution, which I am starting today, is to be nicer to you all.

 

Nevertheless, I am guessing that the reason you don't want the rich tapped for the wherewithall to prevent the poor from dieing of malnutrition, is because you all are already rich, or you all want to become rich.

Wow. It's like you're reading our minds.

 

But the overwhelming opposition I have received on this forum to any idea of the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor inclines me to one of two conclusions:

 

a: You do not perceive the injustice in the way wealth is currently distributed, or

b: You do perceive it, but do not care, or care sufficiently to do anything about it.

Because "c: We perceive it, and we care, but we don't agree with your absurd and unworkable idea of forcibly redistributing wealth" is just too bizarre to be considered.

 

Neither conclusion leads me to a positive view of your church.

You don't know how this haunts us at night, lying awake in bed, knowing the 2RM doesn't think well of our Church because we don't support large-scale government socialistic enterprises.

 

If you can't see the social injustice inherent in the capacity to own a  private jet, or gin-palace yacht, on the one hand, and being unable to feed your family, on the other, nothing I can say will persuade you of that injustice.

So, is anyone else laughing out loud at this mischaracterization, or is it just me?

 

Nevertheless, I'm interested to know, which it is; whether you do not understand social injustice, or just do not care about it?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, or do you just not care about women getting beaten up?

 

What question could be fairer?

 

Anyway, thanks for the comedy, 2RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the overwhelming opposition I have received on this forum to any idea of the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor inclines me to one of two conclusions:

 

a: You do not perceive the injustice in the way wealth is currently distributed, or

b: You do perceive it, but do not care, or care sufficiently to do anything about it.

 

You can lie to yourself about what we are telling you.  But when you post crap like this and call it "our position" you defame our character with your lies..

 

This is why you are not getting anywhere.  Until you strip yourself of  your deceptions we can never have a useful discussion with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how else we can say this in so many ways so that you can understand it...  but, YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN.

 

I think that sums up the issue right there...the OP has no intention of listening. His intent is to tell other people that they are wrong and he is right. No need for listening with that intent, it just gets in the way of truth and facts.

I haven't seen any actual interest in the church in any of the OP's threads. All I've seen is a fixation on the fact that some people are "rich" and an overwhelming desire to tell others what to do with their money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nevertheless, I am guessing that the reason you don't want the rich tapped for the wherewithall to prevent the poor from dieing of malnutrition, is because you all are already rich, or you all want to become rich.

Strawman of peoples positions, and False Dichotomy.

 

 I might be wrong, but behind your arguments I perceive self-interest. Now, self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing. Under certain circumstances, it can be considered prudence, which is a Christian virtue

This is not my perception.

[tu quoque from me] The same argument could be stated towards your views since you have admitted that they would potentially benefit you. Ad hominem, particular peoples self interest (attacking the character, or stating it's prudence, supporting the character) doesn't make any argument of theirs or your's stronger nor weaker. Regardless this doesn't get the discussion anywhere. (when discussing social/political issues)

 

 

 

 

But the overwhelming opposition I have received on this forum to any idea of the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor inclines me to one of two conclusions:

 

a: You do not perceive the injustice in the way wealth is currently distributed, or

b: You do perceive it, but do not care, or care sufficiently to do anything about it.

Another Strawman, and False Dichotomy.

 

 

Neither conclusion leads me to a positive view of your church. 

The conclusions can't be substantiated based on a flawed/inductively weak argument. Even if I agreed with your reasoning: Composition/Division, what is true of individuals can't be equally assumed to apply to the whole.

 

 

But I don't see how I might alter your opinions. If you can't see the social injustice inherent in the capacity to own a  private jet, or gin-palace yacht, on the one hand, and being unable to feed your family, on the other, nothing I can say will persuade you of that injustice.

This is also a strawman, several have commented that there is a social injustice. It is also an appeal to emotion, since people will feel sorry for the poor which would reflect poorly on those you indicate are in support of the straw man "If you can't see the social injustice"

 

 

Nevertheless, I'm interested to know, which it is; whether you do not understand social injustice, or just do not care about it?

Another False Dichotomy.

To be fair everyone participates in these fallacies.

This is why people are getting a bit frustrated.

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you all insist it is so, despite the lack of evidence for this in your replies to my posts, I am quite prepared to believe that you do perceive the injustice in the economic order of the world, and do care about it. If this is the case, might I ask for your preferred solutions? I have provided one, tentative direction to take, a levy of 4% on the world's 225 largest fortunes. But, for some reason, it does not seem popular. I guess you all have better ideas. What are they?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure some of you will be glad to hear that!

 

But I've discovered what I need to know. Let me say first, that I admire many things about the LDS faith. Particularly, I admire your sense of community. And, I admire the way you send your youngsters out into the world to challenge it's ways and beliefs, armed with nothing but their enthusiasm and a nameplate, incongruously titling them as 'elder'.

 

But I don't think I would make a good Mormon. The reason is this. Let us suppose X is things all Christians believe. Let us suppose Y is things only LDS people believe. Let us suppose Z is things only enlightened people believe. If I had the impression that X+Y=Z, then I would be inclined to lend more weight to your beliefs. But I don't get that impression.

 

What I was looking for was a sense of universal compassion, of the requirement for sacrifice to resolve the worlds ills, however 'unfair' that sacrifice might be. I was looking for some notion that all of us, however undeserving, have a stake in this enterprise called life, and all of us, however unbelieving, are brothers and sisters beloved by God, and beloved by each other. I say to you now, I haven't had that sense.

 

So, I will continue to seek, elsewhere, though I may drop in from time to time, to see how you all are getting along.

 

With love, 2RM.

 

I've seen it time and time again...   people expect members of the LDS Church to be perfect.  Someone should have informed this person that LDS members are not perfect from the very beginning and saved 2RM a lot of time.

Perfection does not exist anywhere, so if that is what you desire, you have a long search ahead of you.  :)

 

Brad O. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 If this is the case, might I ask for your preferred solutions? I have provided one, tentative direction to take, a levy of 4% on the world's 225 largest fortunes. But, for some reason, it does not seem popular. I guess you all have better ideas. What are they?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

We understand social injustice just fine.  But we put more importance to FREEDOM OF CHOICE than social status.  Therefore, any solution that you put forth that hinders freedom of choice is not going to be a good one.

 

We are not all rich.  But you are rich.  But we are not going to grab your money to give to somebody.  Instead, we will give you a Book of Mormon, send you Missionaries, encourage you to listen to General Conference so that hopefully you will learn the lessons of the gospel and apply it to your life so that YOU WILL CHOOSE TO SERVE SOMEBODY.  If you still refuse to do so, then we leave you to the grace of God.

 

 

 

It is very clear to me here that you do not listen...

 

Or maybe it just blows your mind that this is a real world solution to real world problems... because, it does not give you the end result of your 2RM special conditions of equality.

 

Life is not about the material things, my man.  Life is a battle of the soul...

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you all insist it is so, despite the lack of evidence for this in your replies to my posts, I am quite prepared to believe that you do perceive the injustice in the economic order of the world, and do care about it. If this is the case, might I ask for your preferred solutions? I have provided one, tentative direction to take, a levy of 4% on the world's 225 largest fortunes. But, for some reason, it does not seem popular. I guess you all have better ideas. What are they?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Proof you do not listen or care to see anything that does not fit your preconceived notions.  In post 40 of this thread I gave you my preferred solution.  And its not just in theory either its what we are actually doing.  Instead of seeing what we are doing you prefer to slander us and say we don't see it or that we don't care.  The evidence is right in front of your face but you lack the willingness to see it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Programs similar to what Regent Park, in downtown Toronto have had done. You would have to have a variation depending on where in the world you tried to implement educational programs.

 

http://www.pathwaystoeducation.ca/

 

Discussion on the program can be read about here:

http://freakonomics.com/2014/12/04/how-to-fix-a-broken-high-schooler-in-four-easy-steps-full-transcript/ 

(In theory I've been told this is similar to the Avid program, just with good funding)

 

Research has been done on education showing it has a large impact on reducing poverty.

 

Having a good teacher can make a huge difference, having no teacher, or no education will likewise have a large impact.

 

 

 

FRIEDMAN: We find it useful to think about a really great teacher, a top 5% teacher, coming into a school and replacing a teacher who was average. Now that substitution, for just a single classroom, will increase the future earnings of those students by nearly $1.5 million over the course of their careers. And of course a lot of that money will come far in the future, so if you’re worried about discounting, $1.5 million over their careers is the same thing as a quarter of a million dollars deposited in the bank that same year to accrue interest and let the students consume more over their lives. But it’s not just that students earn higher wages, we also see that they’re more likely to go to college, they’re more likely to not just get high-paying jobs but high-quality jobs, they’re more likely to live in high-quality neighborhoods, and even for female students we see that they’re less likely to have children as teenagers.

 

The problem of poverty world wide most certainly needs a multi-tiered approach, including charity and handouts. A long term solution also needs development in access to clean food, water, housing, infrastructure, and education.

==============================================================================================

The disagreement I see is where the charity/handouts etc should be organized from: individuals, government, organizations; who it should be coming from: the rich, the volunteer, the community etc; and whether it should be mandated or not, the ethics of a method (where in other threads much has been stated about freedom...(tax is theft, individual choice )versus security (the collective good, tax is not theft).

Which is an entirely different discussion than how people think such a problem should be addressed, and whether they care that there is a problem or not. Which is also different than how earnings brackets among people are different and the ethics of it.(which I think is what you are most concerned about) Which as has been stated before, Is probably not the optimal method for finding a religion. 

 

Which you also need to keep in mind may not be as high a priority to some individuals than some other good cause such as disease, or stopping oppression, reduction of violence....and that not all people are equally at the same moral development level, which is in part is what our religion is about helping people develop (most religions try to teach a system of morals). We certainly aren't perfect. I don't exactly feel like quote mining the various threads that you have participated in to demonstrate the evidence of a perceived social injustice, but it can be done, if that is what it takes to convince you.

 

I don't know if I can state it more simply than this.

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like me saying that in your posts I see a lack of concern for how preventable diseases are killing people. And invariably the discussion will be on how we need to teach people to wash their hands better, and others disagreeing saying we need to hand out face masks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just read every post in this thread. A few thoughts. Dear 2RM,

 

1. I suppose that if you were to join a church there would be something that would draw you to it. If that thing for you 2RM is re-distribution of wealth, I can see how you wouldn't be drawn to us. Of all of the things that would draw someone to the Gospel, this by far seems to me to be the least. 

 

2. You stated “Nevertheless, I am guessing that the reason you don't want the rich tapped for the wherewithall to prevent the poor from dieing of malnutrition, is because you all are already rich, or you all want to become rich. I might be wrong, but behind your arguments I perceive self-interest. Now, self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing. Under certain circumstances, it can be considered prudence, which is a Christian virtue.”  This statement is highly judgmental based off of what? 10 peoples opinions? Speaking of self interests, you definitely have yours. You have mentioned that you are poor. Therefore your self interest is to receive a re-distribution of the wealth or to become more wealthy than you are. Of course you feel others would benefit from that, but perhaps at least your initial drive to take money from the wealthy was not because of the poor children in Africa, rather than reflection on your own status. At what point do we stop taking personal liberties away from people. If it starts with wealth, where does it end?

 

3. Have you visited an LDS chapel? Met with the missionaries? Read the Book of Mormon (they are free)? Other than what you read here have you vested any time into researching or praying about what it is we offer? Charity is a large part of who we are, it is deeply ingrained in our culture and our beliefs. But charity is not our mission statement, nor was it the Saviors. It seems to me that you are not looking for a religion at all, rather an organization that is set up specifically to solve world income problems by re-distribution of wealth. 

 

I do wish you the best of luck in your endeavors 2RM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Earljibbs

 

To begin with, let me wish you, and anyone reading this, all the usual season's greetings, and all the manifold blessings they encompass.

 

Now, the reason why I pick on redistribution of wealth is that it is necessary, to save the world in any temporal sense. And because it demands of rich Christians the need to sacrifice. Not their lives, as Jesus did, but some little thing less hard than that; the thickness of their wallets. And yet, this little thing seems hard enough, for many.

 

Yes, I am poor. But I am not so poor that I am in want. I eat regularly, at least once a day, and I have most of the things I need and want. To be honest, I am not sure what I would do with more money than I have; most likely give it away.

 

Your question: at what point do we stop taking personal liberties from people, in respect of the liberty to accrue wealth other people need to stay alive? When everybody has enough to eat, clean water to drink, secure shelter and sufficient clothing, access to sanitation, primary healthcare and education. After that, what the poor make of their lives is up to them; without that, they are competing in a dog-eat-dog world with an unfair disadvantage. And after that, I am entirely happy for the rich to be as greedy as they like.

 

I haven't visited an LDS chapel. I am not your ordinary church-going sort of Christian. As for missionaries, well, I am happy to discuss with them next time they stop me in the street. The Book of Mormon? Santa was kind, this year, and I now have the funds to invest in one. I will be purchasing, shortly*.

 

All the best, 2RM.

 

* I just discovered the Kindle version was free. So that was a no-brainer!

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I love the idea of everyone having the basics but I don't see how redistribution of wealth achieves that goal. We get a bunch of money together and... what? What or who makes sure the money is appropriately used? What makes the money set things in motion rather than just fall into a pit? How do we ensure the (pardon my phrasing but I can't think of a better term) truly idiotic stay above a certain level after burning through their share of resources? Time and time again money and resources have been handed out only for the recipients to be right where they started some time later. I just don't think mere redistribution of wealth will fix things long term. As has been pointed out, people can live quite well on little to no money if they know about resources. If we redistributed wealth and did nothing else, we would never stop the cycle and very few people would be able to raise themselves further, if any. I know I would hate to be in a never-ending slave state where I work for little while most of my earnings are tossed into a pit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. We can't just hand out cash willy-nilly. We have tried it, and we know it doesn't work. But I think philanthropy, government and private, and charitable organisations generally, are considerably more sophisticated in their operations these days. By all means hold them responsible for social progress; that is their objective, and they need to judge their effectiveness (doing the right things) and their efficiency (doing things right) against every dollar they spend. Should you decide to donate, or pay your taxes, you will want to know, and deserve to know, that your dollars have been spent wisely and well. Accountability is a key part of the transaction.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama recently made this statement in connection with his new policy toward Cuba: "But what I know deep in my bones is that if you've done the same thing for 50 years and nothing's changed, you should try something different if you want a different outcome."

 

Well.  This country has spent 50 years and several trillion dollars on anti-poverty programs, and the poverty rate today is approximately where it was 50 years ago.  I wonder if President Obama will sip his own medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite sure what a hairflip is, but I never said I was leaving you all forever, just that my frequency of posting would be down. Meanwhile, think of me as Jiminy Cricket to your Pinocchio - a friendly, neighbourhood, and annoying conscience.

 

Happy new year, 2RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this