Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Page 6 of 51 [ 801 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 51  Next

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

01 Dec 2020, 12:18 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Everyone, I think we're getting way off track here.

We're not talking about capitalism or economics.

We're talking about personal responsibility and why I think it is a crock.

You're discussing economic personal responsibility.

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Let me ask you all this.

Is it logically possible to make the positive decisions every single time one faces a decision?

And, do all positive decisions lead to positive outcomes?

Do we have absolute control over our outcomes, our lives and the decisions we make? If not, what is the level of control we do have? How do we know and determine this?

Is it logically possible for everyone to make the correct and positive decisions to get themselves out of poverty? Prove that it is possible for everyone?

Is it logically possible for everyone to make the correct and positive and decisions to become rich? Prove that it is possible for everyone?

How easy is it for someone even if they make all positive and correct decisions to fall into poverty?

Can everyone succeed in the USA and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps no matter what their circumstances are? Prove that this is possible?

As stated before, this is not about absolutes; it's about increasing one's chances of success.

Image

cubedemon6073 wrote:

In the game of blackjack, players expect you to take personal responsibility to learn better (higher odds) decisions.

The same is true in game of life.

Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,912

01 Dec 2020, 12:49 am

Quote:
You're discussing economic personal responsibility.


No, I am not. I am talking about it in a more ideological and philosophical sense.


Quote:
As stated before, this is not about absolutes; it's about increasing one's chances of success.



The thing is though is that I'm not treating personal responsibility as absolute. It is conservatives who treat it as absolute when it is most certainly is not.

Again, what is the extent that a person is capable of making the correct, sound and positive decisions no matter their circumstance?

You say that "Luck favors the prepared." To what extent does luck favor the prepared?

Thing is though is one can prepare and one can do everything one is supposed to do yet one can still not succeed in the USA no matter how prepared one is. One can do all the due diligence he wants and things can still go wrong in detrimental way. Yet, conservatives will never ever take this into account. If a person is in negative circumstances it is absolutely their fault due to the decisions they made according to conservative logic. No exceptions. No grey areas. No extenuating circumstances.

Let's use me as an example. I have a job in China as of this moment. I had to go to China to succeed and to provide for myself and my SO. I could not succeed in my own home country the USA. Conservative logic says it is due to the poor decisions I made.

So, I never partied.

I took my studies seriously. In fact, I spent hours studying.

I graduated with a Bachelor in IT. I maintained a B average according to the Hope scholarship in my state.

I didn't do drugs.

I didn't drink.

I didn't have promscious sex.

I even got a couple of internships one which landed me a job for about four years. The job didn't pay the average IT salary which was fine at the time.

Yet, ultimately, after my job ended I couldn't get another all due to most employers having multiple requirements with each requirement requiring years of experience. I even looked online to get answers as to what I needed to do and I spoke to people who had no answers for me. I went voc rehab and all they did was put me through a bunch of hoops. I would never recommend voc rehab in a millions years to my worst enemy.

I ended up going to china to take a teaching job in IT which pays decently. It worked out for me in the end so far.

So, what exactly did I do wrong? What were the poor decisions that I made while in the USA? Where was my lack of responsibility? What specifically was I do to prepare? What was I to do about the personality tests in which the questions were open to interpretation?

And, conservatives would tell me to take jobs like garbage man, etc, etc. But, again, how would I write a resume and job application to get the job of garbage man?

How was I to prepare for a job in IT exactly? How was I supposed to take responsibility for my life? How was I to know what the correct decisions were for my circumstances?



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

01 Dec 2020, 12:51 am

@cubedemon, your questions are almost all absolutes. Basically no one is arguing its possible in all cases for everyone. To avoid diluting the main point that personal responsibility matters I want to address one question I think gets to the crux of the matter.

cubedemon6073 wrote:

How easy is it for someone even if they make all positive and correct decisions to fall into poverty?



The answer is not easy. I found the statistic I remembered in an article arguing against it: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/h ... s-marriage

Quote:
They work full-time.
They graduated high school.
They waited until they were married and at least 21 to have a child.
They found that only 2 percent of persons in families that followed all three norms were poor, whereas 76 percent of persons in families that followed none were poor, and 73.8 percent of those who followed all three were at least middle-class:

Haskins and Sawhill aren't liars. They didn't make these numbers up.


The article goes on to argue that "working full-time," "graduating high school," and "waiting until marriage and 21 to have children" to have children aren't choices. I'll posit for the vast majority of people they are.

"working full-time:" Basically possible for anyone who isn't disabled and is willing to work any job. Now disability is topic near and dear to many here, but I don't think many will argue society shouldn't support the disabled so let's set that aside.

"graduate high school:" I'll posit anyone who can work full time can graduate high school in the U.S. Frankly its not that difficult.

"waiting until marriage and 21 to have children:" To be blunt, unless you're a rape victim having sex is a choice. Just because the vast majority of people choose to have sex before marriage and age 21 doesn't mean its not a choice.

So for most people these are choices. This is not true for everyone, but basically nothing is.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

01 Dec 2020, 12:58 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
I ended up going to china to take a teaching job in IT which pays decently. It worked out for me in the end so far.


Did it ever occur to you that this was a positive outcome of your positive decisions?

If you wanted to stay in the U.S. you could have found a job in the U.S., instead you followed your skillset to China. Moving countries is not something most can do, that avenue was only open to you because of your positive choices.

Seems to me you're looking at what positive choices didn't get for you instead of what it did get.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Last edited by Antrax on 01 Dec 2020, 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,912

01 Dec 2020, 1:06 am

Quote:
In the game of blackjack, players expect you to take personal responsibility to learn better (higher odds) decisions.

The same is true in game of life.



Image


We will go with this analogy even though it makes no sense because I'm not required to even play Blackjack for my survival.

We'll go with it.


A. I attempt to learn the rules. I go get books. I look stuff up on the internet including reputable websites. Now, I don't understand what I'm reading. I read multiple times. It still makes no sense.

B. I go ask others about the rules about Blackjack and ask them to explain. They either will not or can't explain them or they explain them and I don't grasp their explanation. It is Kafkaesque.

C. The stuff I did understand I did attempt to do.

D. I go to an organization called Blackjack rehab and they give me the run-around including not even seeing you for months even after calling and calling. And, there aren't really any organizations out there who is willing to teach dummies and/or beginners or those who don't have prerequisite knowledge. And, then they make you put tags on clothes and shine shoes and other stuff to teach you social skills. Yet, when questioned how all of these things will teach you social skills and how your methodologies will help me to become employed I'm ignored. So, what was I supposed to do again.

E. What did I do wrong in learning how to play the game and attempting to play the game? Where was my lack of responsibility at? What were the poor decisions I made in trying to learn the game of blackjack?

F. I didn't do any of the things that conservatives would claim as irresponsible behavior like drugs, promoscious sex, etc, etc.

G. Was it possible with my cirumstances including my neurology to take this responsibility? How? How was I to do that?

G. I'm guaranteed nothing in life, correct? Life, is not fair correct? We don't always get what we want in life? Logically, that means someone must lose in the game of blackjack and of life no matter what they do or don't do, correct?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,912

01 Dec 2020, 1:10 am

Antrax wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
I ended up going to china to take a teaching job in IT which pays decently. It worked out for me in the end so far.


Did it ever occur to you that this was a positive outcome of your positive decisions?

If you wanted to stay in the U.S. you could have found a job in the U.S., instead you followed your skillset to China. Moving countries is not something most can do, that avenue was only open to you because of your positive choices.

Seems to me you're looking at what positive choices didn't get for you instead of what it did get.


Of course it is possible! I know I did certain right things and I listened to the right people. I never denied that. I just don't think it tells the whole story.

Things are not absolute as conservatives claim. There were other factors at play.

I will say though that I am grateful for the opportunity I received whether it was through my own choices, fate, destiny, grace of God, or any combo of this.



Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 01 Dec 2020, 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,912

01 Dec 2020, 1:39 am

Antrax wrote:
@cubedemon, your questions are almost all absolutes. Basically no one is arguing its possible in all cases for everyone. To avoid diluting the main point that personal responsibility matters I want to address one question I think gets to the crux of the matter.


Which is how conservatives treat personal responsibility



Quote:
The answer is not easy. I found the statistic I remembered in an article arguing against it: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/h ... s-marriage


Interesting article and stats.

Quote:
They work full-time.
They graduated high school.
They waited until they were married and at least 21 to have a child.
They found that only 2 percent of persons in families that followed all three norms were poor, whereas 76 percent of persons in families that followed none were poor, and 73.8 percent of those who followed all three were at least middle-class:


Interesting! This is good. You're posting numbers and stats. I like :) This is the kind of stuff I like to see.

I do wonder though why were those 2 percent of persons poor? One possibility is that maybe they realized the error of their ways and are cleaning up their act. I don't know. I do think this is an interesting question.

It says 76 percent of persons in families that followed none were poor. I do wonder though why 24% were not.





Quote:
Haskins and Sawhill aren't liars. They didn't make these numbers up.


I never claimed they were.

Quote:
The article goes on to argue that "working full-time," "graduating high school," and "waiting until marriage and 21 to have children" to have children aren't choices. I'll posit for the vast majority of people they are.


Maybe that is true!

Quote:
"working full-time:" Basically possible for anyone who isn't disabled and is willing to work any job. Now disability is topic near and dear to many here, but I don't think many will argue society shouldn't support the disabled so let's set that aside.


That's fine! But, I think disability is the elephant in the room. Not just disability but a person's personality as well.

Quote:
"graduate high school:" I'll posit anyone who can work full time can graduate high school in the U.S. Frankly its not that difficult.


Is the converse true as well?

Quote:
"waiting until marriage and 21 to have children:" To be blunt, unless you're a rape victim having sex is a choice. Just because the vast majority of people choose to have sex before marriage and age 21 doesn't mean its not a choice.


True! I would actually agree on this one. But, maybe they should wait a bit later until 25.

Quote:
So for most people these are choices. This is not true for everyone, but basically nothing is.


Yet, conservatives present it as so. Why is that?

Why can't they accept extenuating circumstances like disability or rape? It is conservatives who deal in absolutes not yours truly.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,912

01 Dec 2020, 2:08 am

These are the right choices I did. I did stumble along way with a few of them.

1. I went to college for IT.

2. Did good in High school. Shoot, I even had a 99 in my algebra I class. How about that?

3. Didn't do drugs. I did stumble in 12th grade. But, turned things around in college.

4. Did a lighter class load and kept myself on the dean's list for the most part.

5. I did quit smoking.

6. I got married to a wonderful person.

7. Listened to my teachers.

8. For the most part I never cheated. Again, I did stumble here and there. I turned myself around before doing major damage to myself.

9. For the most part I followed the law. Again, I did stumble. I turned myself around before doing major damage to myself.

10. Made the decision not to take things at face value like I did as a teen/child.

11. Eating better.

12. Did internships and did well at them.

13. For the most part, I did not hang with the wrong crowd. I stumbled but again I went on the right path again.

14. Made sure I did my assignments for college in time and read the assigned chapters.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

01 Dec 2020, 2:17 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:

Yet, conservatives present it as so. Why is that?

Why can't they accept extenuating circumstances like disability or rape? It is conservatives who deal in absolutes not yours truly.


I think you're misrepresenting conservatives here, but admittedly I can't speak for them. While I have some overlapping views particularly on economic issues, I don't consider myself a conservative. However standard republican party line on for example abortion is "except for rape, incest, and danger to the mother." So I think the mentality does take into account extreme circumstances.

My dad is a good deal more conservative than me and always says: "I'll pay to help those who can't help themselves, I won't pay to help those who won't help themselves." I think this kind of statement is common in conservative circles, and its worth pointing out self-described conservatives give more of their wealth to charities than self described liberals.

Disability really deserves its own thread, but I think you'll find conservatives are sympathetic to helping disabled people. They're also terrified of being conned by abled people pretending to be disabled which is where most of the contention comes from. Throw in ignorance of invisible disabilities like autism and you can get some pretty insensitive statements.

These are my impressions of the conservative mentality on these topics.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,912

01 Dec 2020, 2:51 am

Quote:
I think you're misrepresenting conservatives here, but admittedly I can't speak for them. While I have some overlapping views particularly on economic issues, I don't consider myself a conservative. However standard republican party line on for example abortion is "except for rape, incest, and danger to the mother." So I think the mentality does take into account extreme circumstances.


Well, I guess it is possible I'm misrepresenting them but If I'm doing that then it is unintentional. It begs the question of how am I misunderstanding them then?

Quote:
My dad is a good deal more conservative than me and always says: "I'll pay to help those who can't help themselves, I won't pay to help those who won't help themselves." I think this kind of statement is common in conservative circles, and its worth pointing out self-described conservatives give more of their wealth to charities than self described liberals.


And, that is fine. What would be great is this. If he was willing to vote for more funding for places like voc rehab and make it better by bringing in more staff who are better trained with the differing types of disability. Or, if they were willing to form groups themselves and actually assist those with disabilities like Aspergers to get employed.

If they were willing to take their time to do things like that even bring an asperger person into their home sometimes and train and guide them and explain things to them then I would be more likely to hear their message.

Quote:
Disability really deserves its own thread, but I think you'll find conservatives are sympathetic to helping disabled people. They're also terrified of being conned by abled people pretending to be disabled which is where most of the contention comes from. Throw in ignorance of invisible disabilities like autism and you can get some pretty insensitive statements.


For the bolded part, I didn't know they had this fear of being conned. I didn't realize nor understand this. Now, certain things click into place about conservatives and if I ever ask anyone of them for help on anything I need to take a different approach in my asking.



Quote:
These are my impressions of the conservative mentality on these topics.


I see.



KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

01 Dec 2020, 4:24 am

How easy exactly is it to get full time work?

Because everyone I know who looks for it is held back by the 'must have experience' requirement.

That is the thing which is luck.

It is about the luck of when you were born, how NT you are, how good at schmoozing you are, conversely - how intelligent you are.

Obviously someone in full time employment is less likely to be poor than someone in part time employment or on benefit.

Someone on benefit being richer than someone else on benefit is entirely due to luck such as who their parents are.

NAS survey showed 16% of autistic adults in full time employment. How many of us really prefer clubbing to study? I doubt that many going anecdotally on what we talk about on the main forum here.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,958
Location: I'm right here

01 Dec 2020, 4:46 am

Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
... poor people are not going to stare at walls, they're going buy TVs, phones, Playstation/Xboxs, Internet access.
They should forget about TV and video games, and use their time and money to attend vocational classes instead.
How will that contribute to relaxation after an exhausting day of work?
How will setting "Relaxation" as one's highest priority get that person out of poverty?
It won't, but it will keep them sane. Survival tends to be a higher priority than self-improvement.
Prioritizing short-term "survival" over long-term survivability makes no sense at all ...

... unless someone is holding a gun to your head.


There's no sense in investing for tomorrow if you have no reason to believe you will be around to collect on that investment. Especially if you're already in over your head financially and everything you have is already spoken for and then some.

That's what makes it a trap. It's compounded if one is financially illiterate because expecting someone in that position to make decisions that make sense to someone who's more informed is unreasonable.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

01 Dec 2020, 4:48 am

Essentially all that 'people in full time employment and married are more likely to be rich' tells you is 'people who are successful are more likely to be successful'.

Really obviously.

Next they'll say 'people who are married are more likely to have a partner'.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

01 Dec 2020, 6:23 am

KT67 wrote:
Essentially all that 'people in full time employment and married are more likely to be rich' tells you is 'people who are successful are more likely to be successful'.

Really obviously.

Next they'll say 'people who are married are more likely to have a partner'.


Well it's focused on families. Without looking it up, I bet single people with full time employment and no kids have a really low poverty rate as well. As a single person my expenses are far less than a family which should balance out not having a spouse.

I think people can agree that not having kids until married and over 21 is a feasible choice. I think people can agree graduating high school feasible choice for the vast majority of people.

The only point of contention seems to be how feasible it is to gain full time employment. I think the advice of "work any job you can get" makes this not that difficult for most people. Being a full time grocery clerk is a full time job. Being a full time janitor is a full time job. I think you can probably get part time versions of these jobs and gain the experience needed to be hired full time.

Now granted this site's readership is a little different because almost all of us have autism, but again I would argue that falls under the category of disability which really should be discussed separately under its own thread.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

01 Dec 2020, 7:00 am

Yes.

Obviously.

What I'm saying is it shouldn't come as a surprise that someone in full time employment gets more wages than someone in part time employment or without a job.

They get richer that way.

It's like saying 'did you know that 99% of cats say meow and not many dogs do'.

And yeah it's about getting that first foot in the door. So many employers for the more 'basic' jobs don't want aspies esp educated aspies (who are arguably more responsible).


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

01 Dec 2020, 7:22 am

KT67 wrote:
Yes.

Obviously.

What I'm saying is it shouldn't come as a surprise that someone in full time employment gets more wages than someone in part time employment or without a job.

They get richer that way.

It's like saying 'did you know that 99% of cats say meow and not many dogs do'.

And yeah it's about getting that first foot in the door. So many employers for the more 'basic' jobs don't want aspies esp educated aspies (who are arguably more responsible).


Obviously people who meet the criteria will be better off than people who don't meet the criteria, but that's not the point. The point is that only 2% of people who meet that criteria are in poverty, and that the criteria is largely under most people's control.

The original question I cited that statistic to answer was "How easy is is to fall into poverty if you make the right decisions?" The answer I gave was it's not easy, and I stand by that assessment. Basically it comes down to get a job and don't try to support a family unless you have the infrastructure in place.

As for employers for basic jobs not wanting aspies, yeah its depressing. One thing I find noteworthy is just how bad our employment stats are after adjusting for education and intelligence levels. Really goes to show how much a premium society puts on the social skills we're deficient in.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."