Prosperity vs. Poverty

[stinkcat_14]

In fact, we can say far more than you are willing to entertain but not with 100% certainty. Fortunately, humans are able to cope with uncertainty in making choices.

Where does the Church teach that market values are the primary values?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Where does the Church teach that market values are the primary values?

Where does the Church teach that straw men are the primary argument?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Where does the Church teach that straw men are the primary argument?

Thank you for proving my point. The Church does not teach that market values are the only values to consider. There are plenty of times when it is appropriate to ignore market values.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=sallybutler;12853907]H7: Prosperity is the result of having a lot of money, poverty is the result of not having a lot of money.

Interesting. Some without a lot of money may consider themselves prosperous…

Just saying

:doh2:

This phrase screams “don’t take what I say seriously” and/or “I’m not confident in my arguments”.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Interesting. Some without a lot of money may consider themselves prosperous…

:doh2:

This phrase screams “don’t take what I say seriously” and/or “I’m not confident in my arguments”.

I think part of the problem is that the OP has not really defined “prosperity” in any sort of consistent way. The lack of definition pretty much makes any hypothesis regarding “prosperity” rather meaningless.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think part of the problem is that the OP has not really defined “prosperity” in any sort of consistent way.

I’ve given a defintion, two in fact. And repeated them several times in the face of various attempts to derail the discussion. But none are as blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’ve given a defintion, two in fact. And repeated them several times in the face of various attempts to derail the discussion. But none are as blind as those who refuse to see.

The problem is your definition is not consistent. You claim that “prosperity” is not restricted to maximizing income, yet when given an example of someone giving up income to do something not as valued in the marketplace you claim that is not prosperity.

 

[SuperLuigi]

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The problem is your definition is not consistent. You claim that “prosperity” is not restricted to maximizing income, yet when given an example of someone giving up income to do something not as valued in the marketplace you claim that is not prosperity.

No, one problem is that I have given two related but distinct definitions and that seems too complicated for you. Another problem is that you keep falling back on Logical Positivism in an effort to sow confusion and pretend ignorance.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, one problem is that I have given two related but distinct definitions and that seems too complicated for you.

And of course, in the context of Catholic teaching, neither one is sufficient. They are not useful definitions because neither one provides much guidance as to what people should do.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And of course, in the context of Catholic teaching, neither one is sufficient. They are not useful definitions because neither one provides much guidance as to what people should do.

Suffice it to say that the complaint that they are insufficent (for whatever purpose you deem important) is quite different from the accusation that I have given no defnitions or have been inconsistent with them. It would impossible to address any alleged insufficiency while the very existence of consistency of the definitions is being denied.