The Poor

[2ndRateMind]

So, @An Apologetic Sheepdog, may I ask if you think the eradication of absolute poverty a goal worth pursuing? And if you do, do you have any constructive suggestions as to how best to go about it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

So @An Apologetic Sheepdog, may I ask if you think the eradication of absolute poverty a goal worth pursuing?

No I do not. Its a fools errand, impossible task, never been accomplished in the history of Earth and even if tried- could not be sustained.

And if you do, do you have any constructive suggestions as to how to go about it?

I'll tell you why and this comes from actual real world documented experience as a soldier, Engineer and project manager doing some "humanitarian" projects (as part of other largest operations) from Rhodesia with the Brits (Zimbabwe) in the 80's and Somalia, Bosnia, Katrina (in the US) and even the Afghan First in theater ( mainly southern Afghanistan) to name a few. I know this from the planning, staffing, procurement, shipping, distribution, security and combat perspectives from dealing with thefts at Karachi all the way though trying to get through the Khobar pass.

Point is, my information doesn't come from a web browser.

With few rare exceptions, these "poor people" exist because the RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT wants them that way OR is powerless to stop local forces from controlling the turf.

Handing them free food and medicine is nice and makes a good infomercial for donations but does little to fix anything or sustain it after the cameras leave. That's assuming the "powers" don't come in and steal the 'stuff" they are given ( a rules of engagement thing)

The only thing that will 'eradicate" poverty in a sustainable way is an infrastructure ( educational and industrial) that removes it and the only way to bring that into being is to build it. The only way to do that is to get the "powers" to do it.

That's why many of these efforts now are just "rackets". Its like trying to put our a forest fire with a garden hose thinking "more water" will do the trick. Always "more money" but never "more results".

So as we do in project development, until the 'constraining factors ( the bad people stopping these wonderful things) are removed- there is no path to success.

What is your "pie in the sky" "feel good' plan to address those barriers to success?

I would like to hear it.​

 

[2ndRateMind]

I'm not sure I have a plan, yet. I'm still gathering information. But I am sure that the righteous, Christian way forward is to set difficult goals to pursue in this social justice thing. Even if one fails to achieve those goals, one is likely to achieve more than if one has no goals at all. And any such program, even if failing, teaches us lessons on how we might succeed next time.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I'm not sure I have a plan, yet. I'm still gathering information.

That's fine as long as you don't ask for money before that plan is fully developed and published

But I am sure that the righteous, Christian way forward is to set difficult goals to pursue in this social justice thing.

There is nothing "Christian" (Scriptural) about the Marxist concept of "social justice" and no requirement to pursue or achieve it. Actually Scripture speaks against the concept.

Even if one fails to achieve those goals, one is likely to achieve more than if one has no goals at all.

No. Failing to plan is planning to fail. "Success" isn't a random concept achieved by "hope" or "luck". The only people who try to sell that idea are those who hope to beguile a people and separate them from their money with an emotional Ponzi scheme to build a renewable "revenue stream" so they can get paid while "continuing to try" and be able to "explain away" never actually accomplishing anything for the effort.

And any such program, even if failing, teaches us lessons on how we might succeed next time.

I have already saved you all that and shown you the 2 main barriers to success in #42 so lets see this plan of yours that addresses them in any meaningful and effective way.

 

[2ndRateMind]

...There is nothing "Christian" (Scriptural) about the Marxist concept of "social justice" and no requirement to pursue or achieve it. Actually Scripture speaks against the concept...

You are joking, right? Jesus' whole mission on Earth can be construed as His leadership in the battle for social justice. He made it His business to champion the powerless, succour the poor, heal the sick, and teach the sinners. And He pretty much ignored the rich and powerful, except to say that they have their reward now, and cannot expect it in heaven.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

That's fine as long as you don't ask for money before that plan is fully developed and published

I'm not, and won't be, asking for money. Just suggesting that people pay more attention to the charitable institutions active in this area. For specific charities I think worth supporting, see my thread on favourite charities.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

You are joking, right? Jesus whole mission on Earth can be construed as His leadership in the battle for social justice.

That's fundamentally and fatally flawed in every way possible. Jesus had but one mission on Earth and that was to be the Savior. Nowhere did Jesus initiate anything even close to "social justice" as defined in Marxist Dogma.

He made it His business to champion the poor, heal the sick, and teach the sinners.

He didn't "champion" any particular "human category" other than a SINNER. Jesus didn't hand people money. He didn't stand for "equal rights" and he CERTAINLY didn't stand for "diversity and inclusion" (no quotas in Heaven and only ONE path to get there)

And He pretty much ignored the rich and powerful, except to say that they have their reward now, and cannot expect it in heaven.

False. Jesus didn't "ignore" any "class" of people ( He frequently engaged the Pharisees and that group but certainly didn't ignore them) and in proper context the "reward now" comments are specific to those who were unsaved because the "reward" he was speaking of was the "other" reward.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I'm not, and won't be, asking for money. Just suggesting that people pay more attention to the charitable institutions active in this area. For specific charities I think worth supporting, see my thread on favourite charities.

That's fine. People are free to donate/contribute to anything they wish as individuals. Mandating it or doing it with "public funds" is another matter.

 

[2ndRateMind]

That's fundamentally and fatally flawed in every way possible. Jesus had but one mission on Earth and that was to be the Savior. Nowhere did Jesus initiate anything even close to "social justice" as defined in Marxist Dogma.

He didn't "champion" any particular "human category" other than a SINNER. Jesus didn't hand people money. He didn't stand for "equal rights" and he CERTAINLY didn't stand for "diversity and inclusion" (no quotas in Heaven and only ONE path to get there)

False. Jesus didn't "ignore" any "class" of people ( He frequently engaged the Pharisees and that group but certainly didn't ignore them) and in proper context the "reward now" comments are specific to those who were unsaved because the "reward" he was speaking of was the "other" reward.

Hmmm. We are clearly reading different Bibles. Or taking different lessons from it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Dupe

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Hmmm. We are clearly reading different Bibles. Or taking different lessons from them.

You are not reading those concepts in ANY bible. At best you are twisting what scripture actually says to support your agenda which is also a typical Marxist tactic to rewrite history

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, as the Catholic archbishop Helder Camara put it: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Marxist." The reason why the poor are poor is because the rich are hogging more than their fair share of the world's wealth. No wonder they want to discredit anyone who advocates an equitable distribution of God's providence; they want to keep their money all to themselves.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Truman]

Well, as the Catholic archbishop Helder Camara put it: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Marxist." The reason why the poor are poor is because the rich are hogging more than their fair share of the world's wealth. No wonder they want to discredit anyone who advocates an equitable distribution of God's providence; they want to keep their money all to themselves.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Many who wander don't know who they are. - What you do to the least...

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

The reason why the poor are poor is because the rich are hogging more than their fair share of the world's wealth.

That's an overly simplistic and wholly wrong argument that can be easily falsified as I have already done upthread which you refuse to touch in any manner. What that is is Marxist propaganda trying to create class division.

No wonder they want to discredit anyone who advocates an equitable distribution of God's providence; they want to keep their money all to themselves.

Who is this "they"? (I want an exact identity of a particular band of people- not another nebulous answer)

Should not a person ( or business) keep what they EARNED? ( assuming it is done legitimately and legally)

FYI even GOD ( yes Him) did NOT "fairly and equitably" distribute his "inheritance" (Providence) to the Tribes of Israel. (or to anyone else)

Also, He NEVER commanded anyone to give what they had (their wealth) to anyone. That's nowhere near "helping" someone in need.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Who is this "they"? (I want an exact identity of a particular band of people- not another nebulous answer)

FYI even GOD ( yes Him) did NOT "fairly and equitably" distribute his "inheritance" (Providence) to the Tribes of Israel. (or to anyone else)

Also, He NEVER commanded anyone to give what they had (their wealth) to anyone. That's nowhere near "helping" someone in need.

I have, earlier in the thread, pointed out that if the world's wealth were equally distributed, we could all expect a net worth of $33,000 and an annual income of some $27,000. I later qualified this by saying that no one should be paid more than 7x the income of the poorest. I drew attention to the idea of a minimum income. Thus anyone who wanted more than the allotted 7x the minimum income should first have to raise the income of the lowest paid (poorest). Is that exact enough for you? That people who exceed these rough and ready rules of thumb are, for the purposes of the thread, 'they'.

Should not a person ( or business) keep what they EARNED? ( assuming it is done legitimately and legally)

Indeed they should, up to the limits above.

Also, He NEVER commanded anyone to give what they had (their wealth) to anyone.

May I refer you to Luke 18:18-23 KJV?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I have, earlier in the thread, pointed out that if the world's wealth were equally distributed, we could all expect a net worth of $33,000 and an annual income of some $27,000. I later qualified this by saying that no one should be paid more than 7x the income of the poorest. I drew attention to the idea of a minimum income. Thus anyone who wanted more than the allotted 7x the minimum income should first have to raise the income of the lowest paid (poorest). Is that exact enough for you? That people who exceed these rough and ready rules of thumb are, for the purposes of the thread, 'they'.

No, all you did was regurgitate the same old Marxist talking points without answering any direct qualifying question earlier which you dodged.

Let me show you your deliberate errors and how you try to evade exposing the flaws in your premise. Your entire premise and argument is fundamentally and fatally flawed at every step.

First, "wealth" in and of itself is nebulous and you have not defined it in any meaningful way such as money, property, assets, economic productivity or anything else so there is no "redistribution" of "wealth".

Your next claim of an income from wealth is a false dichotomy build on an incorrect correlation because it aint all "money" and who would be "paying" this income?

Since you never established "poorest" in any financial metric- the statement of 7 x is meaningless as well.

Your "rules of thumb" are nothing but subjective adjectives and useless for any "rule" so "they" are still undefined.

Indeed they should, up to the limits above.

What limits?

May I refer you to Luke 18:18-23 KJV?

You can and that's a complete and deliberate out of context usage of that scripture to make a textbook Marxist revisionist false point to attempt to add legitimacy to a fraudulent premise.

That scripture in question relates to a rich man who wanted to work (buy) his way into Heaven in a nice neat fashion and argue legalistically how he was qualified ( much the same way you have tried). Jesus shut him down with something he simply didn't want to actually "do".

Nowhere is this expressed or implied that being wealth is "bad' or that wealth could or should be just "given" to others.

 

[2ndRateMind]

...Your "rules of thumb" are nothing but subjective adjectives and useless for any "rule" so "they" are still undefined.
What limits?...

I know you are reasonably intelligent, which is why I invited you onto this thread. So I can only presume that for some reason you are being deliberately dense. And while you are adjusting your attitude, I would prefer it if you stopped with the insults. They make it difficult for me to understand if you are making some salient point or just looking for an excuse to be rude.

...Nowhere is this expressed or implied that being wealth is "bad' or that wealth could or should be just "given" to others...

Of course wealth isn't bad. In fact, it's so good I want everyone to have some.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I know you are reasonably intelligent, which is why I invited you onto this thread. So I can only presume that for some reason you are being deliberately dense. And while you are adjusting your attitude, I would prefer it if you stopped with the insults. They make it difficult for me to understand if you a making some salient point or just looking for an excuse to be rude.

You are just making things up and trying to hide behind an emotional shield. I have not insulted you in any way and you seem to define "rude" simply as something you cant "word" yourself around.

I have spoken clearly and concisely on this as both a Professional Engineer and Soldier who has actually "been there and done that" and an MBA/Project Manager with the history to back it up.

What I did is challenged your nebulous emotionally charged Marxist points ( and they are all straight from the playbook) with factual, reasonable and very specific qualifiers to both expose them for what they are and to specifically and exactly nail down critical points for any "legitimate" attempt at formulating a resolution.

What do you feel I have been "dense" at? (be specific)

My "salient points" were qualifying and quantifying every nebulous point you brought up.

Show me "rudeness and insult"? (be specific)

Of course wealth isn't bad. In fact, it's so good I want everyone to have some.

Then build the infrastructure where they can go EARN IT like the rest of us had to do.

But then there's that obstacle of the governments who by hook or crook are keeping their people in poverty- what's your plan to deal with that?

What is your plan to deal with the lazy and unmotivated?

Everybody is not a "poor victim" needing help. What's your plan to separate and identify the genuine?

Anyone who wants to discuss any LEGITIMATE effort to help these poor people will have to address all of these key points in great detail.

Now you can start and I'm here to help.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Good. You see, you can be civil when you try. I'll get back to you on your questions tomorrow.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Good. You see, you can be civil when you try. I'll get back to you on your questions tomorrow.

Fair enough. Look forward to it