What troubled me about your post was, like you say, you allude to social injustice but then negate it with massive generalisations about "the obese, bad parents/children." It's something that I hear a lot in television programmes, pseudo-intellectuals, the subtext being:
In all honesty, I think you're being a tad too over-analytical.
I can't be entirely specific when speaking about such a broad topic, lest I load you with personal examples that I have experienced or viewed. On the other hand, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that you're making generalizations from the other side of the debate, in which all people who are down in life are such from outside, uncontrollable factors.
All I was saying is that some people among the examples I was referencing are troubled for their own lack of trying, whereas others are stuck for reasons beyond their control (i.e. social injustice, etc). That's it. The problem, I think, is that I'm viewing both situations as concurrent (perhaps too much so in your eyes) whereas you seem to think it can only be one or the other.
I'm curious as to what you think those reasons are, apart from personal laziness, fat food and the reasons you put in your previous posts?
Do you see any?
There are numerous reasons why people all where they are. In some cases, yes, it's social discrimination, a negative childhood environment, inborn mental problems, genetics, and other uncontrollable factors. I've known a lot of people that struggle with these factors, as you no doubt rightly insist is the case.
In many other cases, however, people just don't want to try, which in turn falls on other factors. Generally, they get caught up in the pleasantries of life and become spoiled, losing willpower and a sense of work ethic. I've seen this numerous times among many of my middle-class and upper-middle class friends, who want things to continue to come easy for them, and in the process lose responsibility for their health, finances, and life in general.
My point is simply that not everyone that is mired in poverty or some other trouble is there for outside reasons. I acknowledge that this sort of thing needs to be looked at by an individual basis, which is why I tried to be cautious when acknowledging both sides of the debate as valid, since, in terms of the bigger picture, they are.
Because people are not the same, don't view what they are in the same way you do, and when they seek help, it might not be enough, and the person in question might be viewed as being worthless which again, affects the help they receive.
I understand that. My point is, what you're referring to isn't always the case. You're always going to have exceptions, sure. But just because everyone starts in a different state of existence with different opportunities (or lack thereof) doesn't mean that they shouldn't all at least attempt to work themselves out of it. The person in question might not get enough help, or might be viewed as worthless. But is not better to try and see, with the chance that they can make it, rather than mire themselves in the status quo?
Furthermore, the problem is that I think viewing people too differently risks entrenching groups into their own stereotypes. If people are convinced to see themselves as being intrinsically unlucky or disenfranchised when compared to others, it risks creating an unhelpful mindset in which they view themselves as being beyond help. That's why I try to make an appeal to social equality, even though I acknowledge the exceptions (since every category and group has them).
Yes, you again, acknowledge the individual person and unique circumstances. I don't want to go into this, but to put it short, I'm interested in this person.
I see it every day. I see people in lots of places who have worked for nothing and are completely lost in life and think certain citizens owe them and use them as scapegoats for their own frustrations.
I see it too, and I know where you're coming from. But just because some people unfortunately don't make it doesn't mean that they're all doomed to such failure and shouldn't try. Where I live, one can see both sides. I've seen people make a living from scratch, from years and even decades of work, ane eventually become successful. I'm seen others do the same but never make it close. That's the unfortunate fact of life, and that's why I support social policies all the same - because you'll always have people that, try as they might, cannot make it.
I don't doubt a lot comes from your personal experience, as does my words.
I did not misinterpret anything as everything you said does not surprise me. I was picking out something based in a post which is full of, I don't know - grey wish-wash, "I acknowledge this, BUT what a bunch of lazy tossers who have no right to sit and complain and do nothing!"
I know you didn't say tosser. Okay? :tongue:
I have to add, you did not tell me what you thought a bad child was?
Alright, I get where you're coming from. The reason I'm taking the centrist perspective is because I genuinely believe both cases exist. I don't like it when people condemn social policies because they think that poor, troubled people are all at fault for their problems. At the same time though, I don't believe that everyone in such a state needs to be given handouts either. There's a little bit of truth in both cases, in my opinion.
What makes a bad child is, I acknowledge, subjective. I'm talking about kids that don't pay attention, have violent tendencies, lack respect and restraint, etc. I know this applies to all kids to a degree (it's part of growing up after all), but in a lot of cases, it falls down to bad parents, who often blame it on other factors but themselves.