Best SOTU in living memory

[mordorbund]

6 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I guess that’s where we disagree. My belief is that every baby has the right to not be born into poverty. Would a baby be better off not being born or living in poverty? A baby born into poverty is more likely to die younger, end up on prison and a host of other detrimental consequences. 

Would you make the same statement about toddlers?

[NightSG]

On 2/6/2019 at 7:13 PM, mirkwood said:

You don't serve 5 years for simple possession.  Quit drinking the kool aid.

Unless, of course, it's possession of "more than you need for yourself.

By the same logic, every LDS home should be subject to health inspections as a grocery store for having too much food inside. 

[Grunt]

8 hours ago, Tyme said:

I guess that’s where we disagree. My belief is that every baby has the right to not be born into poverty. Would a baby be better off not being born or living in poverty? A baby born into poverty is more likely to die younger, end up on prison and a host of other detrimental consequences.

Thats where I disagree with the majority of pro-lifers. If the state is going to force a baby to be born then the state has an obligation to that baby. The obligation is that the baby has the same opportunity as any other baby. That would include not being born into poverty.

You can disagree, but you're dead wrong.  There is no right to wealth.   Emotions aren't arguments.  

[mirkwood]

13 hours ago, Tyme said:

Says the police officer who doesn’t want to feel bad about all his nonsensical arrests.

Can't do the time?  Don't do the crime.

 

@Grunt  JBT.  Really?  Is there a problem here?

 

@NightSG  Your comment makes no sense.

 

#babieslivesmatter

 

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, Tyme said:

What’s the logical argument against abortion?

The Constitution.

There's no provision in the Constitution that you cease to be a Person just because you are poor or handicapped or can't breathe on your own.

[Grunt]

36 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Can't do the time?  Don't do the crime.

 

@Grunt  JBT.  Really?  Is there a problem here?

 

@NightSG  Your comment makes no sense.

 

#babieslivesmatter

 

No problem, Officer.  I saw you tazing that nun on my trip to Utah.  I cheered.   

Edited February 11, 2019 by Grunt

[unixknight]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 11:07 PM, Tyme said:

My belief is that every baby has the right to not be born into poverty

What an utterly materialistic argument.  "Better dead than poor, amirite?  Pass me the caviar, Charleston."

Define what you consider to be such abject poverty that non-existence is preferable.

[Just_A_Guy]

47 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What an utterly materialistic argument.  "Better dead than poor, amirite?  Pass me the caviar, Charleston."

Define what you consider to be such abject poverty that non-existence is preferable.

Besides, the mentality here is that prosperity is the default state of existence and that abject poverty only happens as the result of an affirmative act or series of acts that upsets the natural order of things.  When in actuality, precisely the opposite is true.

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, unixknight said:

What an utterly materialistic argument.  "Better dead than poor, amirite?  Pass me the caviar, Charleston."

Define what you consider to be such abject poverty that non-existence is preferable.

I find that those who ask this question have never seen abject poverty.

LUCKILY it is not all that visible typically in the US (but it DOES exist even if not all that prevalent, especially comparative to many poorer nations, and it is tragic).

Go to some of the poorer parts of the world and it is more apparent.  When you see children with bloated bellies who have suffered the ravages of starvation (it also hurts mental ability) and the tortures that go on in some of those communities (rape, incest, and some other undescribable items are common place experiences among children in some of the more downtrodden and less civilized areas) you might understand.  There would be many in the West that would kill their child before allowing their child to go there...though many of those who went would die anyways, just after being tortured to death in very carnal and horrendous ways.

The things people will do for a scrap of food or a lint of cloth is unbelievable and when in that state, civilization seems to go down the drain very quickly. 

Even in more civilized areas, seeing your child slowly starve to death, or waste away in the streets while freezing to death and you can do nothing about it despite all you can do...there are many that would choose not to have any of their progeny go through that.

There is a difference between poor, poverty, and abject poverty.  Those who think abject poverty is preferable to death at any time have not seen nor experienced abject poverty in the world...or if they have will at least allow that there will be many that would prefer death to such a state, even if there are those who will still struggle for survival nevertheless. 

Abject poverty is having neither way or means to find food, shelter, or clothing and if you have children, as they are more tender and vulnerable, to see them slowly die before you do of exposure, starvation and need.

Edited February 12, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[NeuroTypical]

Well that was one of my more begrudgingly-given likes, JohnsonJones.  My only consolation is that Tyme likely doesn't have the first clue about the realities of what you mention any more than the rest of us. 

[unixknight]

51 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I find that those who ask this question have never seen abject poverty.

...

Abject poverty is having neither way or means to find food, shelter, or clothing and if you have children, as they are more tender and vulnerable, to see them slowly die before you do of exposure, starvation and need.

I'd rather you not assume I'm ignorant when interpreting my posts, brother.

The point you're making here is exactly what I'm getting at.  People in this country talk about poverty as if real poverty was being unable to afford more than one TV in the house and having to buy generic cigs instead of Marlboros.  The reason I asked @Tyme to define poverty was to see if they understood this. 

My father grew up in Ecuador, and not in the upscale part, either.  I've been to where he grew up.  It's like going back a century and a half in terms of technology.  My grandparents lived in a 2 story concrete and rebar structure with no glass in any of the windows, as the climate was mild enough that it wasn't a priority.  They did eventually get steel security bars over the windows, and that was the big  upgrade.  The toilet was in an outhouse on the side of the building and you had to draw a bucket of water to pour into the top tank when it came time to flush.  That bucket being drawn from a well in front of the house because running water just wasn't a thing.  My grandparents had 12 children, and all of them worked at a young age performing manual labor to support the family, though my grandfather did insist thta his children receive an education, which they did.  My father was the only one who emigrated to the  United States. 

The rest of  his siblings ultimately bought houses in the city of Guayaquil all in the same neighborhood.  One had a house built from cinder blocks and a dirt floor.  Another had a nicer house in that it had a tile floor and, one fine day, hot water by means of an electrical heater attached to the shower head.  Oh, and no glass in any of those windows either, until many years later.  Eventually one of my uncles even had enough money to buy himself a 20 year old pickup truck.

My grandmother went to her grave believing the Moon landings were a hoax because she could not conceive of the kind of technology that was used to do it. 

To many people in our country, in our time, that's abject  poverty, and I was curious to see if that was the kind of poverty @Tyme was referring to.  Because you know what?  My dad's family never considered themselves to be in abject poverty.  They still had it better than a lot of others, and were self sufficient, so they didn't need a bunch of money.  They were never hungry, as far as I know, and always had clothing to wear.  They were a happy family, and remained close throughout their lives.  So they were poor, but by our standards, not theirs.

So when I start hearing somebody making what sound to me like ignorant statements regarding quality of life as an excuse, I start, not by assuming they're ignorant, but by asking if they know what poverty really is.

Edited February 13, 2019 by unixknight

[Grunt]

21 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I'd rather you not assume I'm ignorant when interpreting my posts, brother.

The point you're making here is exactly what I'm getting at.  People in this country talk about poverty as if real poverty was being unable to afford more than one TV in the house and having to buy generic cigs instead of Marlboros.  The reason I asked @Tyme to define poverty was to see if they understood this. 

My father grew up in Ecuador, and not in the upscale part, either.  I've been to where he grew up.  It's like going back a century and a half in terms of technology.  My grandparents lived in a 2 story concrete and rebar structure with no glass in any of the windows, as the climate was mild enough that it wasn't a priority.  They did eventually get steel security bars over the windows, and that was the big  upgrade.  The toilet was in an outhouse on the side of the building and you had to draw a bucket of water to pour into the top tank when it came time to flush.  That bucket being drawn from a well in front of the house because running water just wasn't a thing.  My grandparents had 12 children, and all of them worked at a young age performing manual labor to support the family, though my grandfather did insist thta his children receive an education, which they did.  My father was the only one who emigrated to the  United States. 

The rest of  his siblings ultimately bought houses in the city of Guayaquil all in the same neighborhood.  One had a house built from cinder blocks and a dirt floor.  Another had a nicer house in that it had a tile floor and, one fine day, hot water by means of an electrical heater attached to the shower head.  Oh, and no glass in any of those windows either, until many years later.  Eventually one of my uncles even had enough money to buy himself a 20 year old pickup truck.

My grandmother went to her grave believing the Moon landings were a hoax because she could not conceive of the kind of technology that was used to do it. 

To many people in our country, in our time, that's abject  poverty, and I was curious to see if that was the kind of poverty @Tyme was referring to.  Because you know what?  My dad's family never considered themselves to be in abject poverty.  They still had it better than a lot of others, and were self sufficient, so they didn't need a bunch of money.  They were never hungry, as far as I know, and always had clothing to wear.  They were a happy family, and remained close throughout their lives.  So they were poor, but by our standards, not theirs.

So when I start hearing somebody making what sound to me like ignorant statements regarding quality of life as an excuse, I start, not by assuming they're ignorant, but by asking if they know what poverty really is.

I lived in Ecuador for a short period.  Going to the bathroom in buckets and scraping the ice off the road to keep your food scraps cold is a little different than having to wear last generation Nikes

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I lived in Ecuador for a short period.  Going to the bathroom in buckets and scraping the ice off the road to keep your food scraps cold is a little different than having to wear last generation Nikes

Yeah I'm guessing you missed the part where I said something like that when reading my post.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Yeah I'm guessing you missed the part where I said something like that when reading my post.

Nope.  I was supporting it.

[unixknight]

Just now, Grunt said:

Nope.  I was supporting it.

Then forgive me, I misunderstood what you meant.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

The point you're making here is exactly what I'm getting at.  People in this country talk about poverty as if real poverty was being unable to afford more than one TV in the house and having to buy generic cigs instead of Marlboros.  The reason I asked @Tyme to define poverty was to see if they understood this. 

SOME people...however, abject poverty actually also exists in the US, but because it isn't as prevalent and not so widespread it is hidden far better.  There are children that die of exposure and starvation in the US, and unfortunately in some cases, pregnant.  There are exposure deaths in the US a LOT more than people understand, and most of it normally are either elderly or those under the age of 12. 

I find that there are MANY who do not understand this or have NEVER seen this in the US and thus in their ignorance like to say (or pretend in the case of some) that it does not actually exist in the US.

A LOT of it I think is due to those who are in this situation are those without family or friends that care about them and so when they DO pass away, there is no one to notice their passing except for the government (when the body is eventually found) OR...occasionally the news if it is during a specific news worthy story (such as the recent cold snap in the Eastern US).

 

PS: This is not to be confused with the other side of the equation.  Where the government may toss money at people but they have NO IDEA how to take care of themselves.  Sometimes these are druggies, or otherwise that are in awful circumstances brought on by their addictions and thus do crimes and other terrible things.  In some ways, the system is broken because everyone wants to score political points while not actually addressing the problems.  Money can't solve every problem, but at the same time there are those who could use the resources (food, clothes, shelter) if provided even if no money is provided.  I think there are many who try to help (government such as first responders, etc....as well as homeless shelters, religious organizations, and others) and are successful in many instances.

However, there are those who are mentally ill (I think there are a great number of homeless who probably have some sort of mental illness) that also suffer.  I don't know the solution to that.  Even when we try all we can do to help them, many prefer to live that type of life.

Ironically a lot of those who are suffering in need of food or utilities (when it is too cold...or too hot in a few instances) tend to be very proud as well.  Another reason they suffer is because they will not ask for help, even if they need it.  I think this may be the case in many of the Elderly who die from a lack of things is because they will not let anyone know about it (or their children simply are evil enough not to care about their parents).  (and if I were ever in that situation, I'm not sure what I would do or how I would respond.  I probably would refuse to let anyone know and try to suffer it through as well).

Edited February 13, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

SOME people...however, abject poverty actually also exists in the US, but because it isn't as prevalent and not so widespread it is hidden far better.  There are children that die of exposure and starvation in the US, and unfortunately in some cases, pregnant.  There are exposure deaths in the US a LOT more than people understand, and most of it normally are either elderly or those under the age of 12. 

I find that there are MANY who do not understand this or have NEVER seen this in the US and thus in their ignorance like to say (or pretend in the case of some) that it does not actually exist in the US.

A LOT of it I think is due to those who are in this situation are those without family or friends that care about them and so when they DO pass away, there is no one to notice their passing except for the government (when the body is eventually found) OR...occasionally the news if it is during a specific news worthy story (such as the recent cold snap in the Eastern US).

That's true.  That level of poverty exists everywhere, to one degree or another.

The issue here is whether or not "Not being born into poverty" is some kind of human right.  The point I'm trying to make is that before one makes a claim like that, they need to define what they mean by poverty. 

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's true.  That level of poverty exists everywhere, to one degree or another.

The issue here is whether or not "Not being born into poverty" is some kind of human right.  The point I'm trying to make is that before one makes a claim like that, they need to define what they mean by poverty. 

I'd agree. 

In either case, though politically I support the freedom of someone to have an abortion, I personally am opposed to the idea.

In the US...

I'd say the problem though lies in both sides of the political spectrum.  One side wants to stop abortions but then also wants to prevent any money being used to help those who may need support.  The far extremes of that side have at times tried to stop very basic items such as free food (not even money, just food) given out at school for lunches and breakfasts for children.  That same extreme also wants to stop free healthcare for children (when it is not applicable to the adults after the child is born) and specifically that healthcare provided to the children for free by government entities. 

Of course, on otherside are those that feel money will solve all problems.  If a child has a parent who would rather spend the money on drugs or alcohol (or even cigarettes in some cases) there is nothing that will prevent them from finding a way to do so.  The child is still neglected even with the money being tossed that way.

I honestly do not have the solution.  I think part of the problem is that we constantly see things in the extremes rather than being willing to try to meet the other side in the middle and actually address the problems rather than trying to make a stand that our political position is the only true or correct position.

Edited February 13, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

SOME people...however, abject poverty actually also exists in the US, but because it isn't as prevalent and not so widespread it is hidden far better.  There are children that die of exposure and starvation in the US, and unfortunately in some cases, pregnant.  There are exposure deaths in the US a LOT more than people understand, and most of it normally are either elderly or those under the age of 12. 

I find that there are MANY who do not understand this or have NEVER seen this in the US and thus in their ignorance like to say (or pretend in the case of some) that it does not actually exist in the US.

A LOT of it I think is due to those who are in this situation are those without family or friends that care about them and so when they DO pass away, there is no one to notice their passing except for the government (when the body is eventually found) OR...occasionally the news if it is during a specific news worthy story (such as the recent cold snap in the Eastern US).

 

PS: This is not to be confused with the other side of the equation.  Where the government may toss money at people but they have NO IDEA how to take care of themselves.  Sometimes these are druggies, or otherwise that are in awful circumstances brought on by their addictions and thus do crimes and other terrible things.  In some ways, the system is broken because everyone wants to score political points while not actually addressing the problems.  Money can't solve every problem, but at the same time there are those who could use the resources (food, clothes, shelter) if provided even if no money is provided.  I think there are many who try to help (government such as first responders, etc....as well as homeless shelters, religious organizations, and others) and are successful in many instances.

However, there are those who are mentally ill (I think there are a great number of homeless who probably have some sort of mental illness) that also suffer.  I don't know the solution to that.  Even when we try all we can do to help them, many prefer to live that type of life.

Ironically a lot of those who are suffering in need of food or utilities (when it is too cold...or too hot in a few instances) tend to be very proud as well.  Another reason they suffer is because they will not ask for help, even if they need it.  I think this may be the case in many of the Elderly who die from a lack of things is because they will not let anyone know about it (or their children simply are evil enough not to care about their parents).  (and if I were ever in that situation, I'm not sure what I would do or how I would respond.  I probably would refuse to let anyone know and try to suffer it through as well).

What I would suggest, @JohnsonJones, is that in the US the social safety net is sufficiently well developed that “abject poverty” need not exist, if the person affirmatively seeks help through the appropriate government agency.  But  as you point out, addiction, mental health challenges, pride, domestic violence, a simple lack of familiarity with publicly-available resources, and a host of other issues often  prevent a person from accessing the programs that are intended to help.  

Short of government-run home teaching (*shudder*), I don’t know how you make a meaningful dent in that issue at this point in time.  Most of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked already.  

Edited February 13, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

2 random thoughts:

1- Slice of finance clerk life: My ward is a not-too-uncommon mix of poor to wealthy folks.  Every year in December a handful of people just hand cash to the Bishop to help bless the lives of people however he sees fit.  It's always a heartwarming activity - he and his counselors just get to show up at some homes who need it much, with an envelope with a few hundred dollar bills, or a big Christmas dinner, or a stack of Christmas presents for the kids, or whatever.

This year, the giving was generous enough that bishop offered some of the surplus to the bishop of a poorer ward in another area of Colorado.  Bishop told me a little about that conversation - he said the bishop of the poorer ward jumped for joy.  Describing the poverty out in podunk CO, places far away from the interstate (or even state roads), there is multigenerational poverty to rival the stories of some of our RM's who went to Thailand or Venezuela or wherever.   That bishop was going to be able to bless more lives for much less, than my bishop could bless in our mixed ward.  Plumbing repairs and dentures and clothing and stuff, vs big Christmas dinners and envelopes with hundreds.   Talk about doubly-humbling.

 

2- This is a status update from my Facebook feed:

 

We don't know how well we've got it.

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

2- This is a status update from my Facebook feed:

Please tell me that Facebook post was joking.  

I mean, I'm inclined to assume it was, but I'm aware enough of where our culture is heading to know that there's a chance it wasn't.

[unixknight]

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'd agree. 

In either case, though politically I support the freedom of someone to have an abortion, I personally am opposed to the idea.

In the US...

I'd say the problem though lies in both sides of the political spectrum.  One side wants to stop abortions but then also wants to prevent any money being used to help those who may need support.  The far extremes of that side have at times tried to stop very basic items such as free food (not even money, just food) given out at school for lunches and breakfasts for children.  That same extreme also wants to stop free healthcare for children (when it is not applicable to the adults after the child is born) and specifically that healthcare provided to the children for free by government entities. 

Of course, on otherside are those that feel money will solve all problems.  If a child has a parent who would rather spend the money on drugs or alcohol (or even cigarettes in some cases) there is nothing that will prevent them from finding a way to do so.  The child is still neglected even with the money being tossed that way.

I honestly do not have the solution.  I think part of the problem is that we constantly see things in the extremes rather than being willing to try to meet the other side in the middle and actually address the problems rather than trying to make a stand that our political position is the only true or correct position.

I generally don't disagree with what you're saying, though I'd add to it with the caveat that in most cases the best thing the Government can do to help restore people to self sufficiency is to get out of their way.  

Social programs to provide help to those who need it are good and noble programs, but there need to be safeguards to prevent them from either becoming permanent or providing an incentive to rely on them rather than make an effort to get to self sufficiency.  That's really hard to do, which is why it's just better to try to promote economic conditions that encourage people to elevate themselves.

[NeuroTypical]

25 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Please tell me that Facebook post was joking.  

I mean, I'm inclined to assume it was, but I'm aware enough of where our culture is heading to know that there's a chance it wasn't.

Oh absolutely.  It was my post.  There was indeed much complaining and grousing from the teenagers, but I think it fell slightly short of people actually needing professional counseling.

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I find that those who ask this question have never seen abject poverty.

LUCKILY it is not all that visible typically in the US (but it DOES exist even if not all that prevalent, especially comparative to many poorer nations, and it is tragic).

Go to some of the poorer parts of the world and it is more apparent.  When you see children with bloated bellies who have suffered the ravages of starvation (it also hurts mental ability) and the tortures that go on in some of those communities (rape, incest, and some other undescribable items are common place experiences among children in some of the more downtrodden and less civilized areas) you might understand.  There would be many in the West that would kill their child before allowing their child to go there...though many of those who went would die anyways, just after being tortured to death in very carnal and horrendous ways.

The things people will do for a scrap of food or a lint of cloth is unbelievable and when in that state, civilization seems to go down the drain very quickly. 

Even in more civilized areas, seeing your child slowly starve to death, or waste away in the streets while freezing to death and you can do nothing about it despite all you can do...there are many that would choose not to have any of their progeny go through that.

There is a difference between poor, poverty, and abject poverty.  Those who think abject poverty is preferable to death at any time have not seen nor experienced abject poverty in the world...or if they have will at least allow that there will be many that would prefer death to such a state, even if there are those who will still struggle for survival nevertheless. 

Abject poverty is having neither way or means to find food, shelter, or clothing and if you have children, as they are more tender and vulnerable, to see them slowly die before you do of exposure, starvation and need.

HEY.  I come from that "poorer parts of the world".  AND I WILL TELL YOU STRAIGHT UP... Not a single person I know of, even living in abject poverty of the Philippines will ever tell you... I would rather have had my mother kill me in her stomach. 

Yes, we have a mother in my town who gave her 6-year-old daughter to a child-porn outfit because they promised to feed her child and not make her child have sex.  Yes, we have people who commit crimes because they get to eat in jail.  But no, we don't have poverty-stricken people who would rather kill their kids.  That's beyond poverty.  That's just plain evil.

Edited February 13, 2019 by anatess2

[unixknight]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Not a single person I know of, even living in abject poverty of the Philippines will ever tell you... I would rather have had my mother kill me in her stomach. 

Yeah that's one of the more bizarre arguments I've heard from the pro-abortion side... that somehow it's a kindness to take the life of a perfectly healthy baby.  "But they'll have a rough life!"  Well... people have had rough lives for eons and still fought tooth and nail to live.  Besides which, in connection with what we discussed earlier, most people who use that argument aren't even thinking of REAL difficulty in life when they say it.