He notes in the article that there is depravity among the non-poor, but the consequences are more ameliorable - if the teenage son coasts through school without learning a thing, he can still make it into college with a donation from his rich Dad, for example.
Depravity among the non-poor is summed up in the Mexican proverb "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations." Granddad ekes out a living so Dad can get educated and become a success so Son can become a wastrel and slip back into poverty.
Kathryn: While I'm not a big fan of depravity, if someone is paying his or her own way, it's a free country and if it's not against the law, he or she has the right to be depraved. It works for Hollywood, right? On the other hand, if someone wants me to pay so he or she can be depraved, that's a different story. In almost every context other than entitlements, we are required to give something in exchange for what we get. Thus, if a person is poor because he or she has made bad choices in life, he or she should be willing to make better choices in exchange for a helping hand.
I like the way you think, and write, Jenna. Put more succinctly, the depravities of the rich -- or even the middle class -- almost never require others to pay.
You like the way she writes??? Her persistent use and repetition of the sorry and ugly verbal hiccup "he or she" proclaims that her first allegiance, at the expense of any elegance of expression, is to the troglodyte arbiters of political correctness.
I am with you, Kathryn. Has David not watched the "E" channel? An episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians? How about MTV? Many of those in the lower classes are watching and yes, emulating the depravity of these celbrities. And I do not agree that the poor are less likely to be church-going. I wonder if that research is flawed. I do not care if one can AFFORD to be depraved and all. It sets a tone for the society as a whole. That is what needs to be discussed.
I have some sympathy for the idea that if the rich pay for their depravity, it is victimless. But it isn't, because they still make babies, and they still vivisect them.
It would be nice if it were as easy as "who cares if they can afford it", but it isn't, unless you turn your back on the unborn, which is why so many people want to do that.
Sorry, I didn't read him as being too harsh. Reading through it again just to check myself, I have to still hold that he wasn't being harsh. As far as I can tell he's using the word "depravity" to mean two things. One, not being saved and two, not holding to traditional family values such as no sex before marriage, delayed gratification, etc. Can't speak for the man, but that is my take.
I don't know that David was particularly harsh, but I take issue with the idea that the free enterprise system is useless if your people are lazy or unmotivated. That ignores the fact that a free enterprise system will engender in people the motivation and desire to innovate and labor toward their own ends. The more we have a controlled economy, and the more we have social programs that allow people to circumvent that free enterprise system, the more depraved people will become. The less we have those things the more noble and enterprising people will become.
I think the net truth of this is as follows: Being depraved and rich vs. depraved and poor isn't about any difference in the negative effects of depravity. But if you are rich, you DO get more "second chances" to overcome the results of your depravity. IF your dad can pay for the china you broke in the store, you don't go to jail for vandalism, so to speak, and live to break more another day. It doesn't change the damage--especially the damage your depravity-driven behavior may do to the lives of other people (including, let's not forget, the bad example depraved big brother sets for the rest of the younger kids who look up to him) but money does buy restitution and/or escape.
You see, KJ, the lower classes are just so tawdry these days. Why, if only we could return to those lovely days of yore when the poor were ever so thrifty, and kind, and moral - noses to the grindstone, no time for frivolity! - and the slums were bathed in a sort of golden glow.
My mother's family was dirt poor. Polish refugees after WW2 coming from an Austrian work camp. So were many others. They arrived in England were given abandoned army barracks to live in and pay rent for. No running water, no indoor toilet, no heat except for a wood stove.
And yet the English would come on Sundays and marvel and admire the beauty of that abandoned base in the hands of people who had some pride in themselves and where they lived - neat, clean, flower gardens and vegetable gardens.
My father's family were coal-miners. Same thing.
Sure, not all poor are bad and not all poor are good, but at one time there was pride and morality.
Now a lot of it is depraved and just as depraved as some of the rich people are.
Historically, such depravity was common in both the upper (aristocracy) and lower classes. Why do you think the left's snarky phrase "middle class morality" has been used for over one hundred years? The aristocracy didn't care how they acted as they were wealthy enough to be shielded from their actions. The poor didn't care as they had little to lose. It was the middle classes which brought stability, wealth and health to the broad mass of society. And maybe the middle class became middle class as opposed to poor due to attitude.
Kathryn, your response seems like a weird inversion of David's post. You say, "David, there is quite a bit of depravity among the un-poor too..." Did he assert (or even imply) that there isn't? You would have found it somehow less harsh if he'd also made the point that un-poor can also be depraved?
There's probably a lot to argue about (causality and such) regarding the studies that he cites, but I thought his point was pretty straightforward: research indicates that there's a strong correlation between poverty and lack of virtue.
I'm sure that we all know un-poor who exhibit depravity of one sort other, but how does that invalidate the research he cites?
Maybe you're referring to his longer post (at his website) where he asserts that his own work in and among the impoverished comports with the research findings. But again, how does merely making the assertion that his experience jibes with the research make it harsh?
In that longer post he says, "Simply put, any anti-poverty efforts not aimed at getting kids to complete an education, get married, and stay married are a waste of time." You can call it true, or untrue, but I'm still failing to see how it's harsh?
It saddens me to see K-Lo, whom I normally respect, so brainwashed by the left. The depravity of the rich doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. The depravity of the poor does. Case closed!
Government shouldn't help the poor. Nor should private institutions. The poor should stop sinning and they will become prosperous.
If we are ever going to adopt better policies toward handling poverty, we are going to have to tell the truth.
We should be compassionate. But compassionate is not the same as enabling. Speaking the truth today could spare someone out there from making a dreadful mistake. Too many people who are poor today might not be, if only they had recognized the causal relationship between poor choices and poor outcomes.
I say this as someone who has made poor choices. Knowing the truth is valuable.
He notes in the article that there is depravity among the non-poor, but the consequences are more ameliorable - if the teenage son coasts through school without learning a thing, he can still make it into college with a donation from his rich Dad, for example.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKathyrn, you think David's harsh just wait until we REALLY run out of money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDepravity among the non-poor is summed up in the Mexican proverb "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations." Granddad ekes out a living so Dad can get educated and become a success so Son can become a wastrel and slip back into poverty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKathryn: While I'm not a big fan of depravity, if someone is paying his or her own way, it's a free country and if it's not against the law, he or she has the right to be depraved. It works for Hollywood, right? On the other hand, if someone wants me to pay so he or she can be depraved, that's a different story. In almost every context other than entitlements, we are required to give something in exchange for what we get. Thus, if a person is poor because he or she has made bad choices in life, he or she should be willing to make better choices in exchange for a helping hand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like the way you think, and write, Jenna. Put more succinctly, the depravities of the rich -- or even the middle class -- almost never require others to pay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou like the way she writes??? Her persistent use and repetition of the sorry and ugly verbal hiccup "he or she" proclaims that her first allegiance, at the expense of any elegance of expression, is to the troglodyte arbiters of political correctness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't think it was harsh at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am with you, Kathryn. Has David not watched the "E" channel? An episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians? How about MTV? Many of those in the lower classes are watching and yes, emulating the depravity of these celbrities. And I do not agree that the poor are less likely to be church-going. I wonder if that research is flawed. I do not care if one can AFFORD to be depraved and all. It sets a tone for the society as a whole. That is what needs to be discussed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have some sympathy for the idea that if the rich pay for their depravity, it is victimless. But it isn't, because they still make babies, and they still vivisect them.
It would be nice if it were as easy as "who cares if they can afford it", but it isn't, unless you turn your back on the unborn, which is why so many people want to do that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, I didn't read him as being too harsh. Reading through it again just to check myself, I have to still hold that he wasn't being harsh. As far as I can tell he's using the word "depravity" to mean two things. One, not being saved and two, not holding to traditional family values such as no sex before marriage, delayed gratification, etc. Can't speak for the man, but that is my take.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe poor have depravity. The rich have decadence.
The latter have clean streets, mowed lawns, and peace. For a time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know that David was particularly harsh, but I take issue with the idea that the free enterprise system is useless if your people are lazy or unmotivated. That ignores the fact that a free enterprise system will engender in people the motivation and desire to innovate and labor toward their own ends. The more we have a controlled economy, and the more we have social programs that allow people to circumvent that free enterprise system, the more depraved people will become. The less we have those things the more noble and enterprising people will become.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the net truth of this is as follows: Being depraved and rich vs. depraved and poor isn't about any difference in the negative effects of depravity. But if you are rich, you DO get more "second chances" to overcome the results of your depravity. IF your dad can pay for the china you broke in the store, you don't go to jail for vandalism, so to speak, and live to break more another day. It doesn't change the damage--especially the damage your depravity-driven behavior may do to the lives of other people (including, let's not forget, the bad example depraved big brother sets for the rest of the younger kids who look up to him) but money does buy restitution and/or escape.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou see, KJ, the lower classes are just so tawdry these days. Why, if only we could return to those lovely days of yore when the poor were ever so thrifty, and kind, and moral - noses to the grindstone, no time for frivolity! - and the slums were bathed in a sort of golden glow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy mother's family was dirt poor. Polish refugees after WW2 coming from an Austrian work camp. So were many others. They arrived in England were given abandoned army barracks to live in and pay rent for. No running water, no indoor toilet, no heat except for a wood stove.
And yet the English would come on Sundays and marvel and admire the beauty of that abandoned base in the hands of people who had some pride in themselves and where they lived - neat, clean, flower gardens and vegetable gardens.
My father's family were coal-miners. Same thing.
Sure, not all poor are bad and not all poor are good, but at one time there was pride and morality.
Now a lot of it is depraved and just as depraved as some of the rich people are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe can all be as sanctimonious as we like. But the fact remains, we pay a steep price for the depravity of the poor; not so much for the non-poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHistorically, such depravity was common in both the upper (aristocracy) and lower classes. Why do you think the left's snarky phrase "middle class morality" has been used for over one hundred years? The aristocracy didn't care how they acted as they were wealthy enough to be shielded from their actions. The poor didn't care as they had little to lose. It was the middle classes which brought stability, wealth and health to the broad mass of society. And maybe the middle class became middle class as opposed to poor due to attitude.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKathryn, your response seems like a weird inversion of David's post. You say, "David, there is quite a bit of depravity among the un-poor too..." Did he assert (or even imply) that there isn't? You would have found it somehow less harsh if he'd also made the point that un-poor can also be depraved?
There's probably a lot to argue about (causality and such) regarding the studies that he cites, but I thought his point was pretty straightforward: research indicates that there's a strong correlation between poverty and lack of virtue.
I'm sure that we all know un-poor who exhibit depravity of one sort other, but how does that invalidate the research he cites?
Maybe you're referring to his longer post (at his website) where he asserts that his own work in and among the impoverished comports with the research findings. But again, how does merely making the assertion that his experience jibes with the research make it harsh?
In that longer post he says, "Simply put, any anti-poverty efforts not aimed at getting kids to complete an education, get married, and stay married are a waste of time." You can call it true, or untrue, but I'm still failing to see how it's harsh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt saddens me to see K-Lo, whom I normally respect, so brainwashed by the left. The depravity of the rich doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. The depravity of the poor does. Case closed!
Government shouldn't help the poor. Nor should private institutions. The poor should stop sinning and they will become prosperous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we are ever going to adopt better policies toward handling poverty, we are going to have to tell the truth.
We should be compassionate. But compassionate is not the same as enabling. Speaking the truth today could spare someone out there from making a dreadful mistake. Too many people who are poor today might not be, if only they had recognized the causal relationship between poor choices and poor outcomes.
I say this as someone who has made poor choices. Knowing the truth is valuable.
Think of what we are teaching our children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse