Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on January 16th, 2017, 3:16 pm 

I sparked an interesting conversation with someone who grew up in a wealthier environment than I.

He says children in poverty are just unlucky, but I always looked at them as victims of their environment.
I thought it was the norm to think of children in poverty as victims of their environment, but apparently not, so here's my argument.

Most healthy babies are born the same.
They are like sponges that absorb their environment and interact with it.
Without looking at race, we can only differentiate each healthy baby by their environment.

They have no control over their environment.
This helplessness makes them a victim of any harm they encounter.
Harm in the form of bad parenting, or drug addicted parents, bad neighbourhoods or even economical environment.

Well I have a bigger picture than that but its a ramble, so I'll start there

Are children in poverty, victims of their environment.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby BadgerJelly on January 16th, 2017, 3:33 pm 

Children brought up in wealthy surroundings are victims of their environment too. Everyone, broadly and metaphorically speaking, are "victims" of their environments.

I cannot for the life of me remember who said this. Something along the lines of if you see someone living on the street, or in extreme poverty somewhere do not pity them. Simply understand that it may very well have been you. They don't want pity.

So, I would say it is simply luck. "Victim" is a bizarre term to use in the sense you've framed it. Am I a victim of life when I don't like it and privileged when I do like my life? Doesn't seem like the correct way to use the word to me.

So, "unlucky" fits not "victim".
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3769
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Revolutionarywolfhnd liked this post


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on January 16th, 2017, 3:57 pm 

Ok let's look at the other side of the coin, Mike Tyson and Shaquel O'Neil have wealthy kids.
I also argue that wealthy kids can be victims of wealth, especially those who aren't given the tools to take on life by themselves, from scratch, but then they don't have to.
I'm stuck on the political correctness of being able to say we have victims of wealth but no one wants to help them because they have more than enough resources.
Using the term victim in this sense has no depth I agree, but is still politically correct. (?)

With these athletes, they were talented and worked hard, trained hard to change their lifestyle.
It wasn't luck that made Mike Tyson rich, it was his ability to slip your punch and knock you out.
Had boxing not been so profitable, he'd still be in poverty, most likely jail, so then we can look at his kids from two points of view.
One point of view, they are born rich.
The other, their dad is in prison like most fathers with his lifestyle.
The only difference is a pre-ordained environment, not luck.

His kids aren't lucky to be where they are, it was pure determination and the boxing federation that got them there.

Many wealthy parents plan their child's birth, as well as their lifestyle, which is why I wouldn't say they are lucky.

Shaq gave his kid a Lamborghini for his 16th.
Sure he was naturally talented by being tall but there are plenty of tall people who play basketball who aren't millionaires.
He got there using focus and trained to develop his skill.
So again we can't say it's was luck that gave his kids the environment he provided.

With wealthy people in general, the environment they can provide is based on many things.
Education, Government rule/regulation and the economy.
None of these are there simply by luck but they are the main reasons for children being born in the position they are in.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Serpent on January 16th, 2017, 4:38 pm 

Poverty is relative. So is luck.

A median family in a poor country might have all the necessities and few or no luxuries, yet may be healthy and happy. Unless one of their children is born with cystic kidneys and neither they nor their country have adequate medical facilities to give that child a reasonable, pain-free life.
That he was born that way may be simple bad luck. But then again, it may be the result of a chemical factory expelling its waste into their drinking water, in which case he is a victim. If the family let that baby die quietly in its mother's arms, the family are victims just the same. If their faith forces them to keep the baby alive in spite of its best effort to die, he's a victim of the religion, but they're not, because they have a choice.

A poor family in a rich country is usually victimized, deliberately and systemically, both in order to keep it poor and again to take advantage of its circumstances. They usually have little choice but to do the worst work for the lowest wages, pay a larger percent of their income for worse food and housing; they will have only the most marginal influence on their political and economic environment. Their child will almost certainly start far back in the pack: poor nutrition, inadequate sensory stimulation, little parental attention, bad school, dangerous streets, few opportunities.
If he's lucky, he might have a special talent. If he's unlucky, he'll be homely, dull and ordinary. If he's in a family that's addicted/ emotionally or physically ill and/or abusive, he's exceptionally unlucky, as well as doubly victimized.
If he's in a supportive, loving family that makes the extra effort to find and develop whatever natural abilities he may have and nurture his self-esteem, he's luckier than a lot of children in victimized families.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 16th, 2017, 7:50 pm 

Hi all,

Great thread.

Since Capitalism creates Victims, is Capitalism intrinsically Evil? If a Rich man wants to be Richer, who pays for it? I think Robin Hood may have an opinion about this (if he was real).. lol.

But if everyone paid 10% of their income in taxes, is that fair for the Rich man? Should he pay more of the total share simply because the guy across town is lazy?

If a person agrees to work for minimum wage, does that make him a victim?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Braininvat on January 16th, 2017, 7:56 pm 

I don't think this is an actual either/or question. One must reference the particulars of a specific child's life in order to make assertions about luck or victimhood. I think Saul Kripke's causal theory of reference (naming) might be relevant here. One event in someone's life might be the causal prompt of a community calling them "lucky" or "a victim" or something else. (Kripke uses "baptism" to describe this point of causal origination. Also see Hilary Putnam on this matter (NoShips would be pleased with me for mentioning him). Kripke's "possible worlds" also comes into play. In one world, the child could be hit by a pizza someone tossed from a window. In the world where this is a beloved custom on each Feast of the Frisbeetarian Saint, the child might consider this an honor and dubbed "lucky." In the world of neurotic helicopter parents who sue at the slightest provocation, the child might be considered a victim of a terrible act of culinary violence. The child would be the same child in both worlds, named Oreganolious, but would have different descriptive statements made bout him.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4831
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Braininvat on January 16th, 2017, 7:59 pm 

Hey, it's the Anything Philosophy forum.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4831
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby wolfhnd on January 16th, 2017, 10:55 pm 

Dave_Oblad » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:50 pm wrote:Hi all,

Great thread.

Since Capitalism creates Victims, is Capitalism intrinsically Evil? If a Rich man wants to be Richer, who pays for it? I think Robin Hood may have an opinion about this (if he was real).. lol.

But if everyone paid 10% of their income in taxes, is that fair for the Rich man? Should he pay more of the total share simply because the guy across town is lazy?

If a person agrees to work for minimum wage, does that make him a victim?

Regards,
Dave :^)


Communism creates victims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_kill ... st_regimes

There is no inherently evil economic systems there are in theory ways to make any system fair and healthy. The question is what conforms to human nature and can be practically implemented. Humans are tribal animals and most people living in small groups adopt varying degrees of communalism where property is more or less shared. The rewards in a tribal society for being more talented may be mostly social status with only minor material compensation.

Empathy is an important part of what makes tribal life possible and those lacking it are often quickly eliminated by other members of the tribe. In more advanced societies we imprison or other wise remove sociopaths from circulation but since it is easier for sociopaths to blend in the process is less efficient. More importantly sociopaths do not represent the same existential threat in an advanced system as they do in a tribal system.

Beyond groups of say 40 individuals tracking behavior becomes very difficult. Complexity itself makes applying the rules that govern tribal life nearly impossible. It becomes necessary to create general categories of people as individuality is smothered by the confusion of the masses. Rules for behavior natural emerge for dealing with categories of people. The negative effects of this pattern of social development can be seen in both the mass murder of peasants in Russia under the communist or the Jim Crow laws in the U.S. The question is if the rules regarding empathy that work well in tribal societies can be applied to more complex social structures. I would say no. Instead of typing out a long explanation I will simply refer to this paper. Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full

So if empathy is no longer a practical guide to social structure what is the answer? Certainly there is evidence that identity politics simply make the situation worse. Any ideology that treats groups the way individuals are treated in a tribal environment will most likely fail. To replace the social bonds that make tribal society function we have adopted what at first seems like the opposite which is individual rights. Since group size increases efficiency the existential material needs of individuals are easily meet in complex societies. Size completely alters the social dynamics and priorities. Where once private property was threatening to the health of the community in larger societies it replaces the empathy that once bound the society with the bounds of responsibility. Where there is an abundance of wealth it becomes the individuals responsibility to secure their own material security. In theory only the irresponsible are punished by a lack of material necessities but of course we know that is not the way it works out.

There are many reasons why some individual are successful and others not. Some people work hard and some are sloths. Some people have more talent than others. Some are born into privilege and others never escape the poverty they are born into. The most oppressive elements of complex societies however are group identity not suppression of individual opportunity. For example the war on poverty has become a war on individual responsibility. The welfare system that was supposed to help the poor has become a trap and the subcultures it produces mark people as undesirable. It has created a new class of people not according to race or creed but based on the new sub cultures that many cannot escape. These sub cultures are is easily recognized by both those in the sub culture and those outside it reinforcing the normal tribal instincts of people and making the problem more intractable.

The traditional lines of oppression no longer make any sense. The white crack addict in the Appalachians and the black teenager in the ghetto have both become victims of this new class system. What is remarkedly never discussed is that the new class system is largely based on IQ. Those people from both appalachia and the ghetto both easily transition out of poverty if they have "natural" ability.

The failure of the educational system to erase the disadvantages of being born into one of the lower class subcultures should be proof that the solution is not to unrealistically burden people to become equal. It is a cruel new world order that tells people they are victims and were it not for oppression they would be equal. The answer is to not categorize people and give every individual not a group of people the opportunity to live a happy productive life according to their ability.

Being made redundant is not just a problem for the lower classes. Automation will someday replace low level professional. Engineers, scientist, and other professionals are the next group of people to be marginalized as artificial intelligence replaces them. IQ is only a temporary buffer against being made irrelevant or of little practical use to society. We already send millions of people to higher education for no or very little practical results. This institutions seem more like warehouses for excess labor than vehicles to increase productivity.

Massive national debt is certain proof that paying people to be warehoused is not the answer to our problems. Civilization is in a state of crisis, perhaps it always has been. That we are relying on outdated philosophies such as those of Karl Marx and Adam Smith does not give me great hope that we will not continue to move from crisis to crisis. Many people see socialism as the answer but it is clear that in the west and China it has only been made possible by the productivity of capitalism. That there is so little difference between a neo liberal such as Clinton and the neo conservatism of Bush is proof that the elites are desperately trying to avert one crisis after another with little or no real comprehension of the underlying dynamics. What seems most lacking from all ideological groups is simple competence.

While poverty remains a serious problem it has largely become relative and not absolute. Still the social problems continue to haunt us. I believe however that more people are immediately threatened by the larger issue of chaos and the decline of U.S. hegemony than poverty. Social justice is not an option if there is no society to reform when the economic system collapses.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)
edy420 liked this post


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on January 17th, 2017, 6:25 am 

I was beginning to think I was just very cultural.
If I put myself in The shoes of Mike Tysons child, I'd feel disrespectful to say I was lucky to be born into that environment, when really I'm there because he fashioned a course using hard work and determination.

To say it was luck, is like saying he didn't need to work hard to give me the lifestyle he created.
Why work hard for that when all you need is luck to provide for your children?

Being Maori, respect for elders is a sacred point of view.
I try take on other point and of view but I can't convince myself otherwise.

Every influence that lead Mike Tyson to legendary status is like a movingly part in a car, because each decision is by conscious design.
His trainer was his engine block.
His peekaboo technique with his killer left hook was this spark plugs.
Spark plugs don't fire by chance, the engine isn't lucky it works, it was designed that way.

Mike developed his technique from a world champion trainer Custom Otto.

I don't see luck being a part that fits this engine.
At what point in Mike Tysons life do we insert the luck of wealthy children.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby BadgerJelly on January 17th, 2017, 10:19 am 

Is a child lucky or unlucky to be born into a successful and loving family? Lucky.

Does hardwork and determination make success a certainty? No.

Are we lucky to be alive or victims of life? I consider being alive a lucky happenstance and my situation compared to others even more lucky. I did nothing to deserve being born into a reasonably stable environment and having a reasonable education that many kids on this planet at the time (majority) would have only dreamed of.

I was lucky amd they were unlucky. Given a complex string of events from their birth their situations may or may not have panned out better today. For some an "easier" start to life is actually the most difficult for them, and for others a "difficult" start in life fit their personality and be a boon for them.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3769
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Serpent on January 17th, 2017, 11:15 am 

edy420 » January 17th, 2017, 5:25 am wrote:I was beginning to think I was just very cultural.
If I put myself in The shoes of Mike Tysons child, I'd feel disrespectful to say I was lucky to be born into that environment, when really I'm there because he fashioned a course using hard work and determination.


Wait a mo! Check those pronouns.
Who is the protagonist and who is creating the environment?

To say it was luck, is like saying he didn't need to work hard to give me the lifestyle he created.
Why work hard for that when all you need is luck to provide for your children?

What if the father, after much hard work and determination, had been concussed early in his career and died a few weeks later, having exhausted all of the family's resources on medical care?
The child, who had been lucky to be born to hard-working, ambitious and potentially successful parents, and who had no control over any of these events, is now unlucky.
What he eventually ends up doing for his own children will be their luck, not his.

A child is lucky or unlucky in the circumstances of his birth: he doesn't get a choice; he can do nothing to prevent or change his own entry into the world. If there is a war raging and he's born in haystack to a fugitive widow; if he has birth defects; if there is nothing to eat - the baby can't affect these circumstances. If nobody else can affect them, it's luck.
If some adult who did have the ability to choose affected the circumstances: eg. shot the father and hunted the pregnant wife; knowingly prescribed drugs that cause birth defects; took all their food as tithes - then the child is a victim.

Whatever happens later, when there is pizza enough to toss out of windows, has no relevance to the circumstances of birth. Luck is what happens with no active human agency. Victimhood is what happens when one person deliberately hurts another.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on January 17th, 2017, 7:09 pm 

When I fill out an incident report, my boss says there's no such thing as accidents. He'd fire me if I was just unlucky.

In Law, there is no car accident, someone is at fault.

Badger, I agree with what you say about pitty on the "unlucky" but there was no scientific possibility that it could have been you. I grew up on a farm with a bed in my bedroom and one poster. Sure I envied my mates who had T.Vs in their room but I didn't feel I need one.
It's not that I didn't need pity, I didn't want it.
Envying Mike Tysons kids is one thing also, but without a possibility that I could have been those kids, there is no luck involved.

From a scientific point of view, every outcome is determined by a combination of variables.
When the out come is not what the scientist expected, they don't attribute that to the "luck variable"

I think of our society as one big experiment with the desired outcome being an Utopia.
Our Government has flaws which we identify over time and change for the better.
Our economy is flawed, and we work on changing first by awareness and evaluation followed by an eventual change for the better. (I hope)

Am I misfortunate and unlucky to be born in a lower class?
No because the economy was engineered that way by a conscious design, not random luck.
200 years ago, everyone was born equal in my country.
You were born with the same amount of money as a chief.
Around 150 years ago, people migrating from Britain collaborated with my elders to build a Government by way of conscious decision making. (Still no luck involved yet)
That Government consciously decided to implement an economy to achieve fair trade.
None of the environments variables happen by chance.
A 3 tier class system of upper class rich, working class and lower class are all there by design, whether on purpose or not.

Luck can't be used to determine an outcome.
But chance can be used as a risk assessment tool.
If a boxer ends up handicapped it's his own fault, not lucks.
Every fighter understands the risks involved.

Champions take it one step further, most are prepared to kill in the ring and also to die
Every fight has a chance they will be affected by the damage they take.

For someone like Muhammad Ali, he had a high risk of becoming affected with an adverse outcome.
Simply because his rope a dope technique required absorbing blows to make your opponent tired.
The most famous instance was against Gearge Foreman who was renown for incredible knock out power.
Ali being past his prime was supposed to lose but because he absorbed all of the blows using the rope a dope technique, George was too tired, Ali was able to finish the fight by literally pushing George over with one hand.
Luck was no variable in his adverse outcome in old age, he absorbed those blows in a heat higher than 40 degrees Celsius which the heat is another variable that contributed to his condition.

Mayweather designed his fighting style to minimise the risk of injury. He ran from his opponent until they became tired enough for Ann easy knock out.
In his latest interview he said he didn't want to paralysed in his old age, which is why he chose his style.
By knowing all the variables we could calculate the risk of becoming parapalegic in a fight. Ali with his style had a higher risk than Mayweather.

Chance as a measure of risk is still no luck though.
Let's say Ali had a 35% chance of winning against George foreman.
He won but that doesn't make him lucky because he trained hard to earn that 35% chance.

Sorry for the messy reply but smoko is over, back to work.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on January 17th, 2017, 8:54 pm 

Just briefly, someone mentioned they are lucky to be alive.
If you ask any solo mum looking for welfare, luck has nothing to do with birth. (Unless your dads name is lucky)
Mike Tyson had already established his wealthy environment before having children.

Again from a scientific point of view, abiogenesis can't be attributed to the luck variable.
If we could replicate it as an experiment and insert the good luck variable, life begins.
Now if we insert the bad luck variable in the same experiment, life still begins.

Abiogenesis isn't the result of luck, it was demanded by the laws of physics that life begin the way it did.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on January 17th, 2017, 9:43 pm 

BadgerJelly » 17 Jan 2017, 23:19 wrote:Is a child lucky or unlucky to be born into a successful and loving family? Lucky.


Mike Tyson didn't have a loving family and that was one of the main reasons he was such a ferocious fighter. Had he been born in a working class loving family, then no, being born into a loving family isn't an aspect of good luck. Had he been born into a loving family it would have been "bad luck" in the sense you are highlighting the circumstances.

Does hardwork and determination make success a certainty? No.

Sorry but as I understand your point, you are saying luck will guarantee success?
I think hard work and determination will have an incredible impact on my journey to success.
And luck will have zero impact, given its lack of ability to change any outcome in a scientific experiment.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby BadgerJelly on January 17th, 2017, 10:40 pm 

Oh
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3769
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby mitchellmckain on January 22nd, 2017, 7:00 pm 

Is a worm unlucky or a victim?

Neither. It is simply born into its own unique circumstances and inheritance like all other living things. It is the universal challenge of life to make what one can of these in order to live ones own life.

But what of the dream that all human beings are created equal? Well this is a choice we in a free society choose to live by not an inherent characteristic of life. But does this choice mean we should treat children in poverty as victims? I don't see it. Should we counteract the disadvantages that such poverty brings? Sure. Not the same thing at all. Is it helpful to think of them as victims? I don't think so at all! We should be enabling them, not disabling them with excuses.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Serpent on January 22nd, 2017, 7:52 pm 

mitchellmckain » January 22nd, 2017, 6:00 pm wrote: Should we counteract the disadvantages that such poverty brings? Sure.

Enabling them to do what?
All of them, or just the +/-1% that have high entertainment potential?

Without knowing the reason for their situation, can you change it generally?
Without changing their situation, how can you enable them to escape it individually?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby mitchellmckain on January 22nd, 2017, 8:20 pm 

Serpent » January 22nd, 2017, 6:52 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain » January 22nd, 2017, 6:00 pm wrote: Should we counteract the disadvantages that such poverty brings? Sure.

Enabling them to do what?
All of them, or just the +/-1% that have high entertainment potential?


We should counteract the disadvantages as much as we can for all them in order for them to be able to take advantage of opportunities if they are motivated to do so. We cannot make people equal in ability but we can make some effort to even out the opportunities and oppose unfair advantages as much as we can. The fact is that those born in poverty can actually be more motivated to achieve than those given everything. It is the obstacles to children like this which we should be removing as much as possible. And NO we should not be doing this selectively because our ability to measure such things can be very flawed.


Serpent » January 22nd, 2017, 6:52 pm wrote:Without knowing the reason for their situation, can you change it generally?
Without changing their situation, how can you enable them to escape it individually?

By providing access to tools such as education, legal justice and micro-financing we can give people the means to change their own situation.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Serpent on January 22nd, 2017, 8:54 pm 

mitchellmckain » January 22nd, 2017, 7:20 pm wrote:We should counteract the disadvantages as much as we can for all them in order for them to be able to take advantage of opportunities if they are motivated to do so.

Sounds good. Are enough opportunities available for them take advantage of?
If not, how can opportunity be increased, made more generally available or created? By whom is this done, and what actions does it require?
It is the obstacles to children like this which we should be removing as much as possible.

What are those obstacles and how did they come to be?
Are they natural or artificial.
By providing access to tools such as education, legal justice and micro-financing we can give people the means to change their own situation.

Yes, that sounds like the right thing to do.
The central question still remains: How?
The secondary one is: Why hasn't it been done already? Are there obstacles to removing obstacles?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby mitchellmckain on January 23rd, 2017, 6:03 am 

Serpent » January 22nd, 2017, 7:54 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain » January 22nd, 2017, 7:20 pm wrote:We should counteract the disadvantages as much as we can for all them in order for them to be able to take advantage of opportunities if they are motivated to do so.

Sounds good. Are enough opportunities available for them take advantage of?
If not, how can opportunity be increased, made more generally available or created? By whom is this done, and what actions does it require?

It is done by those who see the problem and have ideas about how to deal with them. I know an organization called Kiva whic does micro-financing. I believe there are all kinds of organizations in all of these areas (education, justice, and financing). Sure some of it is fraudulent (whether non-profit or government) and so have to keep a watch on this stuff.

Serpent » January 22nd, 2017, 7:54 pm wrote:
It is the obstacles to children like this which we should be removing as much as possible.

What are those obstacles and how did they come to be?
Are they natural or artificial.

It happens when those with the advantages serve only themselves and their own families, whether they are deserving or not. Thus the gap tends to get wider and wider. So those who care and have a bigger vision of the bigger picture have to act to counteract this tendency.

Serpent » January 22nd, 2017, 7:54 pm wrote:
By providing access to tools such as education, legal justice and micro-financing we can give people the means to change their own situation.

Yes, that sounds like the right thing to do.
The central question still remains: How?
The secondary one is: Why hasn't it been done already? Are there obstacles to removing obstacles?

There has been progress and I think it is foolish to ever think of this as something to get done (which only ever amounts to propaganda) but rather something which always must be worked on.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Serpent on January 23rd, 2017, 11:07 am 

So, are we all agreed that both "lucky" and "victim" are terms inapplicable to children in poverty?

Do we still use "luck" in gambling?
Do we still call the subject of a robbery "victim"?
Or have the words been replaced by something more modern?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
edy420 liked this post


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Revolutionary on February 5th, 2017, 6:28 pm 

Money doesn't equal happiness. The true lucky ones are those with a community that helps and supports them. There are a lot of rich children with problems and a lot of poor children who are relatively content. I think it has to do more with the emotional climate they grow up in as a whole.
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby doogles on February 13th, 2017, 7:23 am 

I don't know how I missed this thread because I'm a boxing aficionardo.

I've been an avid fan since I was about 10 years old

Edy420, I think if we ranked all boxers on their best bout on their best day that Mike Tyson would have been number 1.

Mike Tyson's mentor's name was Constantine ("Cus") D'Amato, not Custom Otto. I'm not being picky, just correcting in a friendly manner, hopefully for your own interest. I envy prize-fighters and would loved to have pursued a career in the ring. I never lost a street fight. Maybe it was for the best because I may have sustained brain damage.

I like BadgerJelly's view, that it's a matter of luck where we're born.

I was born in a lower socioeconomic working class area, but I never felt 'deprived'. We never had any spare money and lived hand to mouth, sometimes running out of cash a couple of days before pay day. But there were always empty beer bottles around that I could shove into a hemp sack and carry about a mile to the bottle yard for a few coins.

I delivered morning newspapers on my bike in all weathers, had an afternoon newspaper round and delivered groceries for a corner shop on Saturday mornings for pocket money. As far as I'm concerned, I had it good.

I can imagine all sorts of problems in being a child of rich people, and never regret the circumstances I was born into.

By chance I happened to be watching a program by Dr Phil some months ago in which he quoted an old Texas 'saying' which I think embodies the attitude we should all adopt as children, no matter where we are born.

"You have to raise yourself above your raisin'."
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 757
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on February 13th, 2017, 1:15 pm 

doogles,

Referring to a legendary trainer by another name is a little embarrassing, so thanks for clearing that up:)
I've read multiple articles but first heard about him in a Tyson interview.

But are you saying you were unlucky?
It sounds like your making the same argument as me, but I'm saying I wasn't unlucky being born with less.

The Tyson vs Ali debate is a bit like the Superman vs Batman debate.
If we look at ability alone then Superman wins in one tenth of a second.
But because of Supermans moral handicaps, he can't kill Batman, which is why Batman was able to beat him multiple times.

Looking at speed and power only, Ali doesn't have a chance against Tyson.
But Tyson has the shortest temper in the world, and Ali's greatest strength was mouthing off the whole fight, coaxing his opponent and being able to predict their every move.
Also, Ali was immune to Tysons greatest strength which was intimidation.
Ali truely believes he was the greatest the way that Jesus believed in God.
He couldn't be beat so he couldn't be intimidated.

Out of ten fights, I pick Ali for 7 easy wins maybe 8
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby Eclogite on February 13th, 2017, 5:45 pm 

I grew up in poverty. I did not consider myself a victim then. I do not consider myself, retrospectively, a victim now.

I am a product of my environment and my genetics, but those are quite different things.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1281
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on February 14th, 2017, 2:56 am 

Eclogite » 14 Feb 2017, 06:45 wrote:I grew up in poverty. I did not consider myself a victim then. I do not consider myself, retrospectively, a victim now.

I am a product of my environment and my genetics, but those are quite different things.


Ok but my point is, you nor doogles are willing to argue you were born unlucky?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby doogles on February 14th, 2017, 6:17 am 

edy420 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:56 am wrote:
Eclogite » 14 Feb 2017, 06:45 wrote:I grew up in poverty. I did not consider myself a victim then. I do not consider myself, retrospectively, a victim now.

I am a product of my environment and my genetics, but those are quite different things.


Ok but my point is, you nor doogles are willing to argue you were born unlucky?


I'm not sure what your intent is with the final question edy420. For the first 7 or 8 years, I never regarded myself as a victim or unlucky. At about that age I think we used to commence fantasizing with our friends and it is possible that we realised that there were families in the world who were rich. We most probably had days when we played imaginary games such as "What would be buy to eat if we were rich?". In trying to recollect such things, I imagined we would have been pre-occupied with food. We would be too young to know anything much about residential areas different from our inner suburban areas.

I remember seeing lovely beds and furnishings in window displays in shops and wishing that I could just jump into one and go to sleep. They were the days when life was always so exciting that we never realised we were getting tired till we virtually fell asleep anywhere. Our beds were seldom made and we shared them with hundreds of bedbugs that thrived under the mattress.

One thing about being poor is that no-one was ever going to kidnap us and hold our parents to ransom. Our parents had only the cash in their pockets. No one in our area had assets or equity of any kind. They were all working class rentors.

I honestly can't recall ever feeling unlucky or as being a victim.

On the contrary, we had extremely little parental supervision and were able to virtually run wild. In retrospect, I think we were very lucky. It was high density residential. There were about 30 kids aged from 5 to 12 in about a 100 yard length of our street (which was only 6 metres wide from front fence to front fence). We always had plenty of playmates.

But I would be fairly sure that a sense of being unlucky, or being a victim never entered our thinking.

Apart from this what do you think of Anthony Joshua?
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 757
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby edy420 on February 14th, 2017, 11:55 am 

I like to think I was lucky growing up on the farm.
Poor, but as young as 8 I was driving Bedford trucks, helping other farmers with hay bailing.
Around 10 I was roaming for miles, finding all the best swimming holes, takling goats with my mates and camping in random blocks of native bush, eating our hunt and plant life, even bugs.
(We sucked at hunting so mostly plants and bugs)

Although I also used to Fanta size about being rich with my mates, I dont imagine many rich kids having a better lifestyle TBH.
I don't think being poor is the same as being in poverty, so then we don't qualify.
I'm curious if kids living dumpster consider themselves lucky when they make an interesting find?

I haven't followed much boxing since Pacquiao vs Mayweather, or much before them.
I am amazed by Lomachenko though, It's like he sees his opponent in slow motion.
Lately I've been building an interest in UFC, before then it was Emelianenko who got me fired up. (The Ali of MMA)
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: Is a child in poverty unlucky, or a victim

Postby doogles on February 15th, 2017, 7:39 am 

Edy420, when I was reaching my late teens, I realised that most of the successful politicians and ‘self-made’ people in life in Australia were reared in the country. In this respect, I would reverse the general tone of this thread by saying that anybody who was reared in a rural culture was ‘lucky’ I realise at my stage in life now, that anyone who was born in a country area was ‘lucky’ in the birth lottery.

During my late teens, I became aware that working class people were very bigoted in their outlook on life. Bureaucrats and police were regarded as enemies. Working class people did not have a sense of having any say in local or national decisions that could affect them. They were not ratepayers for starters because they were generational renters rather than the owners of property.

On the contrary, country people seem to have more of a sense of being part of local decision-making in that they actually know their local councillors as neighbours whom they can communicate with, rather than anonymous decision makers. And I think this local familiarity with decision-makers extrapolates to State and National affairs to some extent.

To my mind, country-reared people were lucky in that they developed a more mature relationship with their governing authorities than we ever had in working-class areas. I had to unlearn many prejudices as I left inner-suburban working class life.

Enough of that! On the side interest in the art of self-defence edy420, Joshua is 208 cm tall (That’s over 6 feet 9 inches in the old scale). The following link shows his 17/17 TKO & KO wins - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybMpSms7oCA . If you watch closely, you’ll see that he punches straight (like Carlos Monzon who held the middleweight title for about 12 years). He doesn’t depend on haymakers.
He punches straight through his opponent’s guard as if it is non-existent.

He does not get slowed up by clinches. His strength is enough to knock his opponents out if they come that close.

I see he is meeting Wladimir Klitschko soon, and beyond that it will be a bout with Deonty Wilder who has a 37 0 0 record with 35 KO or TKO’s.

It is my opinion that these modern-day very tall, muscular and athletic heavyweights would have pulverised all of the previous champions with ease.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 757
Joined: 11 Apr 2009



Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests