His personal living conditions don't change the facts of the matter. The US has incredible economic mobility; only 20% of people born in the lower class will be there their entire lives. And just about all of the top 1% wasn't born or inherited into the 1%, people move in and out of it all the time. Generally it's comprised of old people, people who weren't in the 1% when they were younger. I'm stealing a quote here but please name a single person in the United States who is absolutely amazing with money and saving, that has been in poor for 30+ years. Seriously, give me a name. People have all the opportunity and freedom to make a living. Being born poor is not your fault. Dying poor is.
I don't live on my own because it's cheaper to live with my parents, so I'm going to live here as long as I can. In other words, I don't suck with money. You really don't get it do you? I've already offered concrete statistical evidence, and you think that listing off the different kinds of bills someone living on their own has to pay is an argument? And again, My financial situation has quite literally nothing to do with this discussion, yet it keeps coming up. If you don't want to continue to look like a complete ass, then I suggest you debate the Idea, not the person.
We can inherent the faults of our parent's and their parents before them. You realize children have to be taught and rasied right xandrith?
Yep, I already talked about how some people have a longer road than others. However, you can still escape poverty with relative ease based on personal decisions.
Due to the complexity of the human mind as a construct, some children that are physically abused, sexually abused and or emotional abused will NEVER be able to escape the negative reprocusions that sort of abuse can cause. If those children happen to be born in a poverty cycle, which is even more likely among children that suffer this abuse, they are even more likely to never escape the poverty cycle. Is this true for all who undergo this? Absolutely not, it can often have the opposite effect. It just seems foolish to make such blanket statements without truly understanding why poverty exists in America and will continue to exist. What I mentioned was obviously only a small piece to the puzzle but I can guarantee poverty as a whole is wayyyyy more complex of an issue then your making it seem and ts quite disrespectful and shallow minded to treat it in the way you have. If you don't work with kids for a living or truly understand how malluable they are, and how early upbringing can affect there ENTIRE life's then it's not just okay to say "relative ease based on personal decisions" gtfo here with that. If you experienced a traumatic and truly unfortunate upbringing, perhaps you would have a less myopic perspective on the matter.
You're not explaining why your animations create a better game. Everything you describe essentially boils down to "yeah but then you have to choose". You can like clamber and sprint but you need to accept that they breed a shallow skinless game that blends in with every other generic shooter on the market. You're gaining quite LITERALLY nothing in return. But yeah sure you can like it --- Double Post Merged, May 17, 2017 --- This is that we call arguing from emotions, and not from the brain. Just gonna restate that 80% of people born in the bottom class don't die in the bottom class. No one said anything about ridiculous outliers and strenuous circumstances, of course those exist
First of all, are you actually trying to suggest that poverty, or at least a large chunk of it, exists because of child abuse? That's absolute nonsense. Secondly, you're trying to take an infinitesimally small sub-section and use it as an argument against the idea that escaping poverty, as a general rule, is decision based. I would never sit here and say that there aren't or shouldn't be exceptions, but my comments are statistically proven to be true for the mass majority. To use a group of people as statistically insignificant as your example in an argument against my general statements, is very intellectually dishonest. I get it that you work with kids and that you care about them, but I honestly don't care as far as discussion goes. It adds nothing to the merit of your statements.
I know plenty of people technically living in poverty with children. Saying child abuse doesnt make up a large part of why some people stay in poverty is a bit ignorent. And no, im not talking about beating the **** out of kids; im talking about how some parents fail at raising a contributing member of society. Parents play a huge role in the development of their kids work ethic, manners, critical thinking skills, and health. All these are generally out of the kids control for the first 10-15 years of their lives. I think you are puting way to much responsibility on incompetent people. That being both the parents and the children. Also, try limiting your usage of the word "statistically" unless you have some actual statistics you would like to share.
If you're actually going to link child abuse and not laziness for the reason of poverty in the richest nation on earth then you can get the **** out with your stupid ass opinions
People are poor because -They're born into poor families or otherwise stuck in one due to familial ties -They have no family to support them -There's not enough money to seek opportunities -There's not enough money to pay for treatment or management of physical or mental health conditions -They're not skilled enough to find a livable wage job -They're not white -They're not legal citizens -They're born in a bad area of the country -They're not resourceful enough -They don't qualify for government assistance -They're lazy -Any combination thereof, which can exponentially increase the likelihood of remaining poor Source: I was dirt poor and grew up in a ghetto before my parents sold everything and moved to a rich white neighborhood.
If you're going to just broaden the term "child abuse" until my statements are no longer accurate, then fine. I don't care to argue with someone so obviously biased. However, since you asked... https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/ http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2012-01-27/story/three-rules-staying-out-poverty# http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/soc...ay-in-school-keep-your-job-and-find-love.html http://www.dailywire.com/news/14525/5-statistics-showing-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler Again, I would never suggest that this is a catch-all plan. But the Idea that the absolute mass majority of "poor" people in America aren't capable of escaping poverty with the right decisions is based in absolutely nothing but anecdotal crap.
I was using an extreme contrast simply to prove a point. The point being, that a child's upbringing has a profound effect on an individuals personality. As you know, your decision making skills are part of your personality which is crucially developed during childhood. The example I used was an extreme, simply one small % of the differing causes of many upbringings that would foster bad learnt decision making skills. Obviously decision making and choice is the last step in coming out of poverty but consider that the very ability to make those decisions can be learnt during the childhood phase. That isn't to say we don't have control over our own choices or have our own instiric personality, I believe we do. But its not as simple as the message " people just need to choose not to be poor".
Someone open a window and let some of this wrong out. Almost all of the reasons you just listed, aside from the nonsensical ones, are completely solved by making the same 3 decisions I already shared. I'll touch on the few that need further explanation. The single greatest predictor if inter-generational poverty is single motherhood, not race. The poverty rate among non-married white families, as of 2008, was 22%. In the same year, the poverty rate for black married couples was 7%. So, where is the white privilege? Wouldn't the white, non-married couple be better off because they are white? Of course not, that's stupid. Being here illegally is about as good of an explanation for poverty as crime is for going to jail. Literally almost anyone is skilled enough to find livable wages. I already talked about the multiple autistic people working in the same office as me. If you're actually incapable of working, then you can easily live off of disability, but that's is such an incredibly low number of people that It wouldn't even matter if the disability wasn't a thing in this argument. --- Double Post Merged, May 18, 2017 --- Well then we agree, because that's not my message.
Never said it was exclisively child abuse. Lazyness does also play a role. I was speaking specifically on child abuse because that is what the topic was. A common theme here is you are assuming children are perfectly able to handle a ****-ton of responsiblity, most of which the parents are accountable for. You need to take a breather it cant be healthy being so upset over stupid **** all the time.
https://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse/ What is child abuse? Child abuse is when a parent or caregiver, whether through action or failing to act, causes injury, death, emotional harm or risk of serious harm to a child. There are many forms of child maltreatment, including neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation and emotional abuse. Im not broadening the definition for what defines child abuse, Im using the actual definition. You are narrowing it to fit your bias, ironically enough. I'd be willing to bet the Autistic guy you work with has wonderful parents.
You're doing it again, but this time you Ctrl-c + Ctrl-v'd the definition of child abuse. Bravo. So, Failing to teach your kid how to handle money counts as emotional or physical harm/neglect? Luckily for me, words have an objective meaning, and I don't (or shouldn't) have to explain them to you.