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.

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

Postby Joemailman on May 22nd, 2017, 9:59 am 

A. A human being cannot be lucky or unlucky before they are born.
B. Every human being is born into an environment that is the making of the culture (environment) they are born into.
C. Luck is a word used as an excuse not as an explanation.
D. Victimization has everything to do with competition and the nature of the competitive system of economics.
E. The philosophy and economic structure that human beings live under renders them victims to one degree or another.
F. Luck is a term of resignation not a realistic or useful term. IOWs being in the right place at the right time is a matter of probability and not anything at all which would suggest privilege or pre-determination.
G. For those (the extreme minority) who consider themselves "lucky" or who are in the position of differential advantage, they all seem to possess a quality of ignorance, superstition, greed and it's accompanying fears, anger and it's accompanying defenses, or a combination of more than one negative characteristic.
H Finally, human beings born into poverty to any degree are victims of competition and economic scarcity. In short...Ignorance is the rule of human interpretation not measurable intelligence.
Joemailman
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 21 May 2017


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

Postby Joemailman on May 22nd, 2017, 9:59 am 

A. A human being cannot be lucky or unlucky before they are born.
B. Every human being is born into an environment that is the making of the culture (environment) they are born into.
C. Luck is a word used as an excuse not as an explanation.
D. Victimization has everything to do with competition and the nature of the competitive system of economics.
E. The philosophy and economic structure that human beings live under renders them victims to one degree or another.
F. Luck is a term of resignation not a realistic or useful term. IOWs being in the right place at the right time is a matter of probability and not anything at all which would suggest privilege or pre-determination.
G. For those (the extreme minority) who consider themselves "lucky" or who are in the position of differential advantage, they all seem to possess a quality of ignorance, superstition, greed and it's accompanying fears, anger and it's accompanying defenses, or a combination of more than one negative characteristic.
H. Finally, human beings born into poverty to any degree are victims of competition and economic scarcity. In short...Ignorance is the rule of human interpretation not measurable intelligence.
Joemailman
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 21 May 2017


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

Postby Serpent on May 22nd, 2017, 10:21 am 

What does "luck" mean?
It's utterly meaningless to an infant with a hydrocephaly and parents with no medical insurance.
It's equally meaningless to another kid born to parents with no health insurance, but who is robust enough to be a successful professional athlete.
About the same statistical probability; about the same economic circumstances; different outcome.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2531
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


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

Postby henriette on May 23rd, 2017, 3:01 am 

Dear,
Your child in poverty is maybe first symbolic, the symbol that the universe is yet totally failed. We may be astonished by the existence of children in poverty in rich societies and at a time where people have replaced god by a faith in the strenghts of life, moving between Scylla and Charybdis and making life a Golden calf (that is a most deletarious attitude). "Life is beautifull" is an insane FB-like statement that finds its own contradiction in the existence of the child in poverty (the helpless, suffering and naked-thus-clear mirror of the world). Hence when a child is in poverty we may rather consider ourselves adults the unlucky victims of our own barbarity.
We should not fool ourselves, the principles of democraty do not aim at tempering the existence of this symbol but rather provides an acceptable (ethical) justification for it. Goodwillness and love are factual hypocrisies in societies, because those declared and lovely goals of the social-democracy are in contradiction with its constitutive principles.
Having longly served as a non-professional and makeup idiot within a pediatry-cancerology department, where children are somewhat unlucky, I came to that conclusion that maybe fits with the topics : though suffering is real, pain is mostly a cultural chimere.
User avatar
henriette
Member
 
Posts: 357
Joined: 30 Oct 2007


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

Postby edy420 on June 23rd, 2017, 1:42 am 

Joemailman » 22 May 2017, 22:59 wrote:A. A human being cannot be lucky or unlucky before they are born.
B. Every human being is born into an environment that is the making of the culture (environment) they are born into.
C. Luck is a word used as an excuse not as an explanation.
D. Victimization has everything to do with competition and the nature of the competitive system of economics.
E. The philosophy and economic structure that human beings live under renders them victims to one degree or another.
F. Luck is a term of resignation not a realistic or useful term. IOWs being in the right place at the right time is a matter of probability and not anything at all which would suggest privilege or pre-determination.
G. For those (the extreme minority) who consider themselves "lucky" or who are in the position of differential advantage, they all seem to possess a quality of ignorance, superstition, greed and it's accompanying fears, anger and it's accompanying defenses, or a combination of more than one negative characteristic.
H. Finally, human beings born into poverty to any degree are victims of competition and economic scarcity. In short...Ignorance is the rule of human interpretation not measurable intelligence.


Well put.
I'd elaborate on D/E by pointing out that society is engineered to be the way it is.
It's not by chance that we have an elite class or a poor class.
There's a lower class by design.
This design claims to be fair, but it could only be fair if we were all born from poverty and worked our way to the elite class.

This leaves us with a "lottery" as doogles puts it.
But Lotto numbers are not predetermined the way our birth place is.
We will always have our parents DNA, which means our birth place is predetermined by our parents place in society.
Our parents are where they are by design, so I have to disagree with doogles on this one.

I think of the 3 classes of society as slices of a pie.
There needs to be X amount of poor Y amount of middle class and Z amount of rich.
We can't just all move up to the rich part of society, as there would be no poor or working class to take our money and do our bidding.
There's a balance between the 3, and that can't be altered much, meaning as hard as you try, your children will be born into the category that you are supposed to be in.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests