From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 15:01:59 GMT
Matt,
Matt said:
> We have two differences as I see it:
>
> 1) Theoretical: You think spiritual change for everyone must occur before
> material change is to happen for everyone. I think material change for
> everyone must occur before spiritual change is to happen for everyone.
Steve: I agree with you. A person's biological needs must be met first.
But most people's biological needs are met in this country, no?
>
> 2) Practical: You think that "with the exception of a relatively small
> group of people in
> the US, people's material necessities are taken care of." I disagree. I'm
> still sympathetic to the pain and suffering of those around me and I think
> that we have a ways to go before material necessities are taken care of.
>
Steve:
For some reason you equate being sympathetic to thinking that people's
biological needs aren't met even if they are. Would you care to estimate
the proportion of people in the US who lack food, clothing, and shelter?
If you give a larger estimate than I do, is that supposed to mean that you
are more sympathetic than I am?
Matt:
> I will take your Question Quiz as someone I'm talking about would take it.
>
>> I could take the highway instead of the country road and get there 5 minutes
>> faster. Will it make my day more enjoyable?
>
> No, but I only have 15 minutes to get between jobs, so an extra 5 minutes
> to breathe will help me keep my job in case of a 5 minute set-back.
>
>> I could get a second job and make more money. But would I be any happier?
>
> Yes and no. I don't like two jobs, but since I'll be able to feed myself
> and my children, I suppose you could say I'd be happier.
>
>> I could dump my wife for someone younger. Would my life be any better?
>
> No, because I don't think someone younger would also want to work two jobs
> and help raise my kids.
>
> You see, I keep switching the ground to the perspective of the poor because
> that's where the problem is. Those may all be pertinent questions for the
> rich and lazy, but they seem pretty stupid for the poor and destitute. You
> don't see this problem because you think that there aren't many poor people.
>
Of course the relevant questions are different for each individual. I
wasn't trying to give questions for the type of person you are thinking of.
I don't know what has you so convinced that you understand poverty better
than I do or that I'm not sympathetic to the poor.
You proved my point anyway by answering the questions from any point of view
because the only point I was trying to make was that anyone can and does
think about Quality.
>> Steve said: Both the the liberal and conservative points of view are based
on the
>> assumption that more wealth is what will make our lives better. You seem to
>> agree when you say that what we need is "more money." I disagree (and in
>> doing so I have apparently offended your liberal sensibilities with your
>> "oh, Lord" and your choking back of anger, disbelief, and sorrow.)
>
> Matt said: Something extraordinary has happened to me just now. I realize
what Steve
> is saying finally. Because in arguing with Steve, I've come across someone
> who thinks we have enough money. In light of you, Steve, I rescind on
> needing "more money." Now I think we need more sensitization towards the
> pain, suffering, and humiliation of others so that economic status quo
> apologists like yourself won't think that "with the exception of a
> relatively small group of people in the US, people's material necessities
> are taken care of."
I agree whole-heartedly that we need sensitivity to the "pain, suffering,
and humiliation" of others.
From my point of view you keep calling me insensitive for saying that 1+1=2.
I can't apologize for the fact that proportionally, we don't have many
people who lack biological necessities in this country. I can't see why I
should want to apologize for saying such a thing.
I keep saying that I'm not arguing that there is no problem. I'm arguing
that the nature of the problem is not poverty in the third-world sense. The
"pain, suffering, and humiliation" of the poor and the rest if us in the US
for the most part is not about being naked, hungry, and without shelter.
I'm not an economic status quo apologist. I'd love to talk about how we
could have more economic justice in the US and how people can gain a sense
of dignity. IMO the answer is not simply "more money."
>
> Thank you Steve. I hope you enjoy the view of the world from your gated
> community.
>
> Matt
Steve: The funny thing is that I live in the city of Philadelphia in a
racially mixed community (a rarity in this and any other country). I live
within a few hundred feet of houses worth over $500k and others that
couldn't be given away. I see poverty every day.
>Matt said:
> p.s. I know, I know. That was uncalled for. I've been reading too much Al
> Franken lately. Blame the decline of public civility on him. Or Rush
> Limbaugh as he does. Either way.
>
Yeah, it was. It's a shame that you can't be civil.
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 17:16:23 GMT