po18guy
Well-known member
Move this to social justice. It has nothing to do with apologetics.
- Status
N
neat62
Guest
R
ribozyme
Guest
I think some goals of fighting abortion and poverty reduction are mutally exclusive. Of course, I want emphasis on the latter.OK. Then fight poverty. You don’t have to choose one issue, though. Both are terrible afflictions on the world.
And, besides, they’re so intertwined that if you fight poverty you ARE fighting abortion and if you fight abortion you are fighting for the rights of the poor. So, if what stirs your heart is to work on poverty reduction, then do so and know that it pleases God greatly that you are helping his less fortunate.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
You think this for two reasons. You have been brainwashed by liberal doctrines and propaganda and you fail to see that the root cause of poverty and abortion is the same.
So, reducing poverty and fighting abortion are not mutually exclusive unless you focus on the problems at one level and keep your focus there.
People (Iiberals) who don’t believe in evil make that judgment error.
P
pete_29
Guest
Poverty is Real !!! 
I thought it was made up in the 19th century so that Charles Dickens could sell books.
I thought it was made up in the 19th century so that Charles Dickens could sell books.
B
bilop
Guest
100% of all people who ever lived before 1900, including Kings and Emperors, were poor by 21st Century U.S. standards of wealth.
Were none of their lives worth living?
A poor American has more material comfort than Caesar Augustus.
Most of the poor in the U.S. would be considered upper middle class in most other countries, even today. A poor family in the U.S. with a $10,000 p.a. income, a house or apartment with indoor plumbing, heat, A/C, telephone, TV, stereo, etc. would be well-off in China and India, and rich in most of Africa.
It is insane to say poverty is worth than death.
Poverty does not prevent you from reaching Heaven; it may actually help. Jesus Christ assured us that the poor will always be with us.
God Bless
Were none of their lives worth living?
A poor American has more material comfort than Caesar Augustus.
Most of the poor in the U.S. would be considered upper middle class in most other countries, even today. A poor family in the U.S. with a $10,000 p.a. income, a house or apartment with indoor plumbing, heat, A/C, telephone, TV, stereo, etc. would be well-off in China and India, and rich in most of Africa.
It is insane to say poverty is worth than death.
Poverty does not prevent you from reaching Heaven; it may actually help. Jesus Christ assured us that the poor will always be with us.
God Bless
R
ribozyme
Guest
But poverty can transform one’s one into real garbage, and it causes pain, suffering, humiliation, and despondency.
B
bilop
Guest
Life causes pain, suffering, humiliation and despondency, poor or rich. A major finding of the behaviorial sciences is that increasing levels of wealth have led to no increased happiness.
A person is never turned into “garbage”. They can only turn themselves into “garbage” through their own actions. Suffering is unavoidable in life, and does not affect the quality of that life. What matters is a person’s own behavior: how they treat God, if they live a moral life, and how they treat their fellow man.
I would imagine the average peasant of the 14th century was a damn sight more moral than the average 21st century American.
God Bless
R
ribozyme
Guest
Could you should me the studies? Let me see them in detail because I agree with what you say (somewhat), but I know you fully do not understand those studies.
There are diminishing marginal returns on wealth. A person who receives $10,000 dollars a year would be less secure, and presumably more miserable than someone who gets $70,000 a year. It is likely that having $60,000 would increase their quality of life. However, an increase in the same $60,000 for someone who gets $10,000,000 a year would produce little increased utility.
So what is the dollar amount for significantly decreased marginal utility? Do you have the information on you? I think it is around $30,000.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
Gee, I guess fighting poverty automatically makes you an elitist snob, huh ribozyme? Did you learn in graduate school that Catholics don’t understand how to read social science?
What arrogance. Hence the handle- is the handle Ribozyme supposed to be a hint that Catholics don’t understand Biology, too?
Here’s a hint. I read that study too, and I dare you to tell me that I didn’t understand it.
The threshold was $40,000 a year in the US. Happiness did not increase above this level in the study.
The generalizable finding was that once basic needs are met, happiness does not increase with material resources
B
bilop
Guest
Not a specific study i had in mind; but I’ve seen many studies that show as incomes have increased over the years, happiness has not. Relative income has only a mild positive effect on happiness. Here’s one study on that.
princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/15/09S18/index.xml?section=topstories
R
ribozyme
Guest
What is the happiness rate in low gini countries compared to high income countries? I supposed in developed nations relative income is a better predictor of happiness. And people in Denmark and Sweden are happier.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
Why are you asking him?
You are making an unsubstantiated claim, you link to the studies that show there is a linear statistical relationship between material wealth and personal happiness.
C
Ceil-1
Guest
A huge percentage of poverty, in this country, anyway, is caused by single-parenthood. It is hard enough to raise children with two parents in this society. Never mind the complication of single-parenthood and/or divorce.
Why not start there? That would cover a lot of ground. It would go a long way in reducing the psychological illnesses, delinquency, and addictions that are epidemic in this society. The government could take the money it uses dealing with these things, and pay for secondary schools for the underpriveledged.
But then, people would be self-reliant and educated, so that isn’t likely.
Why not start there? That would cover a lot of ground. It would go a long way in reducing the psychological illnesses, delinquency, and addictions that are epidemic in this society. The government could take the money it uses dealing with these things, and pay for secondary schools for the underpriveledged.
But then, people would be self-reliant and educated, so that isn’t likely.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
Of course, if you were a Liberal, you would say that the Remedy to single parenthood is to make sure that everyone is “ready” for parenthood, and if you aren’t “ready” then you need to have an abortion.
That sounds logical to some people, but in actuality the legalization of abortion preceded a dramatic rise in divorces in the1980s and out of wedlock births in the late 80s and 90s.
Why? Maybe becaue abortion removes the incentive to abstain from fornication, and removes the incentive for men to commit to one wife?
Abortion is all about the rights of people to have free sex, and free sex is a huge contributor to divorce and women who get pregnant and are never married by the baby’s father.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Did I say wealth and happiness have a linear relation. I did not say that. To the contrary:
How does that imply a linear relationship? Above a certain point of income, happiness becomes determined by mainly genetics (the happiness set-point) and other factors such as having a stable martial relationship and going to church (these are the few things that allow one to get ahead on the “hedonic treadmill”). I do not think increasing happiness is desired, but I do think reducing suffering is. I suppose having excellent access to health care without worrying about how to pay and having shelter and food without any significant threats to access improves the quality of life and reduces stress.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
Why are you still quoting unsubstantiated claims? Where is the research?
I must be getting confused. Another poster quotes a study that found that in the US, after a person reaches about $40,000 a year and basic needs are met, more money doesn’t make a person happier. YOU demand to see the study because you are absolutely CERTAIN they have misconstrued the study. I could not find the study, but it was summarized in the news in 2008. I did find this article. csmonitor.com/2008/0624/p09s01-coop.html?page=1
So I then ask you to back up whatever claims you are making, and you obfuscate the request with a tangent on whether or not you claimed there was a linear relationship between material goods and happiness??
Gee, what am I missing.
Please stop making unsubstantiated claims. If you can demand that someone show you a study, then quote your sources as well.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
That’s a new one, never seen the definition of human life as “having interests and preferences” before.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Here is something that shows that income is correlated (not caused) to happiness.
gallup.com/poll/104608/Worldwide-Residents-Richer-Nations-More-Satisfied.aspx
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/03/income-and-happ.html
I stand by my claim that poverty can convert one’s life into real garbage (it isn’t my own remark: “hontou no kuzu”) although it is not justified by what I have cited. The word “garbage” has a somewhat subjective interpretation. However, there are ways one who is in poverty could do to prevent their lives from becoming that. But it is really difficult, and one needs to have some hope. Without hope, I do think one’s life can turn into “real garbage.”
R
ribozyme
Guest
State CAREFULLY what specific claims that you want backed up. You thought I stated that there was a linear relationship? What claims I have made that you want backed up?
Here are several empirical claims I have made:
Happiness is determined by genetics (after a certain point of wealth is reached) and there is a natural set point
Religion can increase happiness
A good marital relationship can increase happiness
Financial security reduces stress
People in Denmark and Sweden are happy because of their lower income inequality and high absolute standard of living
There is diminishing marginal utility on wealth
This is an online forum and I do not feel obligated to rigorously support some of my claims (especially the claims 2,3,4, and 6 as it seems intuitive; I’ll leave the burden of proof for those who oppose those claims). However, I feel that claims 1 and 5 may need to support and I will assume the burden of proof on those claims.
- Status