Hantlers
Well-Known Member
In that case, when I see reliable evidence that JimLes and yourself are correct, then I'll accept it. Until then, tough luck.
/do you see how pointless this is? I hope you do. It's just a continual circle. Pointless.
Should We Reward Good Students?
- Thread starter Hantlers
- Start date
In that case, when I see reliable evidence that JimLes and yourself are correct, then I'll accept it. Until then, tough luck.
/do you see how pointless this is? I hope you do. It's just a continual circle. Pointless.
If you have an alternative way to describe the contents of your post, besides "The truths disgusts you, and you're taking it out on the messenger.", I'll read it. My interpretation could be due to a lack in my imagination. Show where you were really reacting to the ideas in the post, if you can.
I hope for nothing else. What will you accept as reliable evidence?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
What will you accept as reliable evidence?
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
I agree. And the major point I see in your post here is that people need individual attention -- implied in some of the other posts here, but not yet said this clearly and directly. Of course, giving everyone the individual attention they need in order to help guide them and tailor their goals and expectations appropriately is a difficulty all its own. It's why class size is such a big deal, because too large a class means less individual attention.
Also, managing people is hard, and few people do it well. In my experience most managers see themselves as the higher rung on the totem pole that is there to make high-level decisions that their workers can't handle, but what a manager is supposed to do is to help their employees do their own work. The manager serves the employees, rather than the other way around. That's just what managing is.
As for teachers, well, they basically are managers and need the exact same set of skills -- except that they're paid less money, appreciated less for doing it, are required to work harder and do more than most other kinds of managers, and have a more important job than just about any other managers in the world.
No wonder we're so screwed up.
EDIT:
This scene from The West Wing comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND_a8rA67VA&t=39s
Last edited:
I don't think I could list every possible item. The actual golden plates, with an ancient age confirmed by some testing method, would be impressive. Consistently accurate knowledge that extended beyond the local libraries Smith could access, perhaps.
Ditto.
green
Well-Known Member
Bull ****. BULL ****. UTTER BULL ****. I hate this thinking. Show me ONE person that works 80 hours a week in America, is smart with their money, that ends the year with nothing. You can't. Because it is impossible to work 80 hours a week, live within your means and have nothing. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
What a crock of ****. LOL. Lame, one brow. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, but this is preposterous. Let's say you made $7.25/hr and worked 80 hours a week. That is over $30,000 a year. Your taxes would be approx $2,000. That leaves you with $28,000 a year cash. That is $2300 a month. Let's say you spend $450 on groceries ($15 a day). You have a roommate on a decent 2 bedroom apartment ($500/month). You pay utilities, phone, tv, internet ($200/month). Laundry is $60 a month. Now, if you were smart, you would live close to public transport or walk to work ($100 month). Clothes ($50 month). That all adds up to $1360 a month. You still have ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH LEFT OVER.
That means, for someone making $14/hr, could easily save $12,000 a year if they lived frugally and within their means.
What a meaningless statement. If you work one hour a week for $1, and "live within your means", you'll have money left over. It just that you won't have much by the way of "within your means".
How do I feed my (let's say two of the same gender, but it's often more or one of each) kids? That's another $500 for rent and $200 for utilities that I no longer have a roommate to pay, another $30 in laundry, another $20 in clothes, another $250 in groceries. That's the whole budget. We still haven't accounted for daycare/school supplies. Also, I don't have a car.
Now, I can cut back by moving to a worse neighborhood, buying lower quality groceries, etc. However, as a parent, I'm going to choose the best neighborhood I can manage to keep my kids safe, and feed them as well as I can. So, I'd rather have $0 left and live in eastern Belleville than $500 and live in East St. Louis.
Thank goodness for those time machines. If poor people didn't have access to them, you comment would come off as uninformed and callous.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
It's common sense. If you're not making enough money to properly provide for your children, then don't have them.
Buy condoms. Use birth control pills. Get your tubes tied. Abstain from sex.
I get that "mistakes" happen, but perhaps people should be a little more responsible with their actions.
You mean, mistakes like "I couldn't travel the 300 miles to the nearest abortion clinic", "I should not have married that person 15 years ago", or "I should not have assumed that military base would stay open"?
Seriously, you have no idea who forms the working poor. You are embarrassing yourself.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
I don't have any idea who forms the working poor?
I have worked with and managed people who are considered poor. I have seen how they act inside and outside of work. You don't know what I know, or what I don't know...don't assume, Eric.
As for your examples above, they are the minority. Most of these poor people having kids are single, and were single when they had their kids, as well as working the same minimum wage jobs they had when they had the kid. I see it happen over and over.
But please, answer this question. Don't answer it with another question, or try to avoid it like you always do. Should people with minimum wage jobs be having children? Is it responsible to do so? I would like your thoughts on the subject.
Obviously not, if you think they generally have kids while they are poor.
Who hasn't? Every janitor in your building is part of the working poor. Everyone works with poor people. They just don't advertise it.
Your thinking their is some common way "they act" which you can tie up with a ribbon is more proof that you have no idea whom you are talking about. Your words are sounding like the words of any ordinary bigot.
As you have before in this thread, when you have no grounds for your argument, you resort to rudeness.
Again, "these poor people".
I always answer relevant questions. Sometimes people don't like the answers, or that the answers are more complex than they realize.
That depends on the couple. I was working for minimum wage when my first two kids were born, but that turned out pretty well.
Would you tell someone they have to remain childless, because no one will offer them a better job? If they get pregnant, would you tell them they should have an abortion?
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
But, shouldn't we just eliminate poor people entirely? I'm really just talking to annoy you, it amuses me.
On a serious note, I like how you say that I attack people, yet you're the one calling me a bigot. You also couldn't figure out the difference between "there" and "their", but that doesn't really matter.
As for my last question, I don't believe that abortion is ever a good option (unless it is a life or death situation, and even that is tricky). I just think that people in certain tax brackets should be a bit more responsible when it comes to having children if they cannot afford to provide for their kids. I just know that personally, while I would be grateful that their are programs to help people in that situation, if I was in that situation, I would want to do it on my own...so I want to be in a situation where I can afford kids before I have them. Maybe that plan won't work out, but I hope it does.
Just one more thing, props to you for (hopefully) raising your kids well. I'm sure it's not an easy job. However I did notice that you didn't say what type of job your wife had at the time. I imagine that would make a difference in the income your household was bringing in.
On a serious note, I like how you say that I attack people, yet you're the one calling me a bigot. You also couldn't figure out the difference between "there" and "their", but that doesn't really matter.
As for my last question, I don't believe that abortion is ever a good option (unless it is a life or death situation, and even that is tricky). I just think that people in certain tax brackets should be a bit more responsible when it comes to having children if they cannot afford to provide for their kids. I just know that personally, while I would be grateful that their are programs to help people in that situation, if I was in that situation, I would want to do it on my own...so I want to be in a situation where I can afford kids before I have them. Maybe that plan won't work out, but I hope it does.
Just one more thing, props to you for (hopefully) raising your kids well. I'm sure it's not an easy job. However I did notice that you didn't say what type of job your wife had at the time. I imagine that would make a difference in the income your household was bringing in.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Please tell me you are joking.