Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
28 Dec 2020, 6:47 am
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
KT67 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
If it is a problem and you cannot work, there’s no shame in that. If you can’t work, why seek a job in the first place?
Because people blame people who are too disabled to work for their own predicament.
And why do we care what they think? If someone...and I don’t see autism as necessarily a disability, I see it as, idk, differently-abled...physically, mentally, intellectually, CAN NOT work, then they CAN NOT work and they don’t owe me or any other conservative, libertarian, or objectivist any justification whatsoever.
Now having said that, they are not entitled to anything more than having their basic needs met. If YOU want to send disabled people to Disney World, that’s YOUR prerogative, YOUR responsibility. There is nothing wrong with that. But individuals do not OWE disabled people any special care. They have the choice to be generous, and they quite often are generous.
To blame someone for what they cannot help and do not cause is stupid. But to allow your self-esteem to suffer because someone else is stupid? I don’t care who you are, that’s pathetic. The real tragedy is believing the words of others actually matter. Sometimes those words do matter. But words of hate belong in the metaphorical dustbin of irrelevance. The most logical AND joyous experience is one spent in the presence of positivity, banishing the darkness of negativity, hate, and envy.
Here is my answer! Because they have a lot of clout and they have major influence in what services and help we will get in social society.
Aaaah! In “social” society. Therein lies the problem. With socialist programs, it always comes down to who is paying for services.
In the book 48 Laws Of Power, one of the laws is “Beware the free lunch.” When people give you something that appears otherwise free, they usually expect something in return. Nothing is ever truly free. But that creates another problem, too: When someone does a thing of their own free will and it is beyond our power or will to stop them, we know good and well we owe them NOTHING. When you do something FOR someone, they instantly know you either have power over them or you want power. They will either work to repay their debt if they can, or they will resent you for being nice. It’s not necessarily a rational view, it’s just how people are.
I combat this by examining my life and finding ways that people really do owe me “free” stuff. Did I do something right, or do people just love me that much? If so, I respond with gratitude. If they are malicious, I just laugh because the joke’s on them.
When you are DEPENDENT on the kindness of others, you forfeit the right to choose. I don’t approve of abortion in most instances, therefore I resent knowing that I have to pay taxes that support it. I’d rather not support it at all. Make abortion a strictly life-saving procedure and then it’s up to the doctors and the insurance companies. In a capitalist society, you can support whatever charities match your interests and moral values. So if I maintain a certain worldview and support a charity that believes in same, I expect certain behavior from those receiving those benefits. I expect them to have reasonable sustenance, not steak and seafood every week. Heck, I haven’t eaten steak in over a year now. I’m certainly not going to be in favor of people who depend on me and don’t work, regardless of circumstances, to enjoy a better quality of life than I do. My own children don’t even get nicer things than I do. I can’t afford alcohol, which is why I don’t drink. You think I’m going to be ok with the crazy bum on the street buying hard liquor with what little money I’m practically killing myself to earn when I can’t even buy a pint of Jack Daniel’s or Revanche for myself? And if these people are destroying themselves with addictive drugs like crack and heroin, that is not my problem. I don’t support self-destruction, I didn’t choose to make them addicted to things, and I’m not going to pay for something they did to themselves.
But when people who ARE dependent receive aid out of the generosity of those who have enough that they can give, they should respond in gratitude and reflect that gratitude in their behavior by living up to the expectations of those who love them. What you don’t do is bemoan how you can’t do things because you are physically and intellectually unable. If you have a “free ride,” be grateful people are able and willing to give it to you. You certainly don’t complain about people who do things for you because of their ability to give.
Even in a socialist society, beware the free lunch still applies. If the state is feeding you and feeding you well, the state still expects you to support their ideology. An objectivist never gives anything away for free. If you receive money from an objectivist, no thanks is ever required. You earned it. It’s yours. If you are disabled and cannot work, then it just means they love you. An objectivist isn’t going to say what you can/can’t do because you are your own person. You’ve already done what was expected of you just by being kind, loving, gracious. If you choose to buy addictive drugs and alcohol, they may withdraw support because they don’t like the idea of hastening your death, but they aren’t going to make a point of saying what you can or can’t do. They will see a self-loving attitude and kind spirit as worthy. If I am dependent, then living a moral life is the least I can do for those who support me—not because I am obligated to them, but because I want to return something of worth to those who wish to deal with me in kindness. Socialism obligates. Sharing is immoral because it is an obligation between those who take and those who are taken from. True, heartfelt generosity is only possible under objectivism, and ethical capitalism is the vehicle by which honest trade is facilitated.
I don't just mean help or aid from the government. I mean help or aid from the average joe. Like taking time to help me and guide me through job searches or practice interviewing with me. Or, doing what you are doing now and answering some of my questions and try to guide me through things that make no sense to me.
Basically, the conservative person instead of trying to spend his time in politics trying to get rid of social programs take time with people who are on them and help them to get employed.
Here is an example of a personality test question of differing questions. Do I believe life is not fair? I didn't understand the question at all and what it was asking. 1. Why does my beliefs, feelings and emotions matter if there is an objective reality outside of myself. 2. What is fair and fairness? Are we doing a statistical analysis because the word can mean average? 3. Or do we mean just? But the concept of justice is open to interpretation because it seems like one group can define fairness differently then others. If we mean average what are our statistical points exactly?
Conservatives see taxing people who have money to give to the poor as theft while liberals don't? So, what is justice and fairness exactly? How was I to give a logical answer?
This is another reason I had difficulty with getting employment in the USA. Conservatives don't want people to be on welfare then are they willing to sit down with the person and help them with questions such as this?
Some conservatives are.
Most sensible conservatives aren’t against welfare because they don’t want to think of grandma cold, sick, and on the street. Being totally anti-welfare doesn’t make sense, not even for an objectivist. Logically, if you are opposed to welfare, you are the least hypocritical for accepting it.
It’s people who have the most potential and refuse to live any other way that perpetually end up on welfare that conservatives have the biggest problem with.
I also reject the premise that conservatives really are that stingy. I had more liberal friends when I lived in New York State. I dated a young woman with albinism. Her family was really nice, but they were really just old hippies. Big time liberals. Unitarian/Universalists, too. I was amazed how tight they were with money. It’s a sort of New England mindset where if you don’t absolutely need something, you don’t have it. And with other families, too, they’d drop their kids off at college and not see them again before they picked them up for Thanksgiving. Kids didn’t even have their own cars to get home. To me that was just weird. But it turns out that “frugal” and conservative are not synonymous, with conservatives being more generous and charitable. Where I grew up, more freedom means more earning power, and unlike New York we have more distance to cover to get to school, job, etc. The lifestyles of conservatives reflect values not just of money, but of the quality of life that comes with making it. We tend to be a little more loose with what we have. Welfare depends almost entirely on wealthy conservatives to prop up those who aren’t as willing from the outset to share the wealth. It’s not a simple matter of being unable...it’s understandable if people don’t give because they have nothing to give. The problem as I see it is that those who are screaming the loudest in support of welfare and charity are the least willing to contribute when they DO have money. I’m genuinely curious, for example, where all that money goes that people give to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and the Clinton Presidential Library And Massage Parlor. “Those” liberals less often give to helpful charities but will give generously to political causes and make welfare someone else’s job—meanwhile the liberal politicians and lawyers are getting crazy rich from doing...well, practically nothing.
And that’s just the collectivist mentality. Take what you didn’t earn, give to the “needy,” and those who end up with most of the wealth are those who are “most” in need—those being your funeral home directors, preachers, lawyers, community organizers, and out-of-work politicians turned authors and public speakers. They need that money more than you do so they can organize protests and pass legislation to get you an extra dollar or two a month, except they are limousine liberals who don’t actually care about the truly needy. There are givers and there are takers. You can’t be both.
As I’ve mentioned before, there are conservatives who will help you and give you advice. And those who have been the most successful if they are too busy to mentor you individually, they have books and blogs where you can find what you’re looking for. In other words, conservatives are already doing exactly what you said you think they should be doing, and they’re not even obligated to do it. Liberals, otoh, love to funnel money to victim classes while keeping it out of the hands of those with a genuine, short-term need, something my wife and I really have fallen victim to.
28 Dec 2020, 7:36 pm
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
KT67 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
If it is a problem and you cannot work, there’s no shame in that. If you can’t work, why seek a job in the first place?
Because people blame people who are too disabled to work for their own predicament.
And why do we care what they think? If someone...and I don’t see autism as necessarily a disability, I see it as, idk, differently-abled...physically, mentally, intellectually, CAN NOT work, then they CAN NOT work and they don’t owe me or any other conservative, libertarian, or objectivist any justification whatsoever.
Now having said that, they are not entitled to anything more than having their basic needs met. If YOU want to send disabled people to Disney World, that’s YOUR prerogative, YOUR responsibility. There is nothing wrong with that. But individuals do not OWE disabled people any special care. They have the choice to be generous, and they quite often are generous.
To blame someone for what they cannot help and do not cause is stupid. But to allow your self-esteem to suffer because someone else is stupid? I don’t care who you are, that’s pathetic. The real tragedy is believing the words of others actually matter. Sometimes those words do matter. But words of hate belong in the metaphorical dustbin of irrelevance. The most logical AND joyous experience is one spent in the presence of positivity, banishing the darkness of negativity, hate, and envy.
Here is my answer! Because they have a lot of clout and they have major influence in what services and help we will get in social society.
Aaaah! In “social” society. Therein lies the problem. With socialist programs, it always comes down to who is paying for services.
In the book 48 Laws Of Power, one of the laws is “Beware the free lunch.” When people give you something that appears otherwise free, they usually expect something in return. Nothing is ever truly free. But that creates another problem, too: When someone does a thing of their own free will and it is beyond our power or will to stop them, we know good and well we owe them NOTHING. When you do something FOR someone, they instantly know you either have power over them or you want power. They will either work to repay their debt if they can, or they will resent you for being nice. It’s not necessarily a rational view, it’s just how people are.
I combat this by examining my life and finding ways that people really do owe me “free” stuff. Did I do something right, or do people just love me that much? If so, I respond with gratitude. If they are malicious, I just laugh because the joke’s on them.
When you are DEPENDENT on the kindness of others, you forfeit the right to choose. I don’t approve of abortion in most instances, therefore I resent knowing that I have to pay taxes that support it. I’d rather not support it at all. Make abortion a strictly life-saving procedure and then it’s up to the doctors and the insurance companies. In a capitalist society, you can support whatever charities match your interests and moral values. So if I maintain a certain worldview and support a charity that believes in same, I expect certain behavior from those receiving those benefits. I expect them to have reasonable sustenance, not steak and seafood every week. Heck, I haven’t eaten steak in over a year now. I’m certainly not going to be in favor of people who depend on me and don’t work, regardless of circumstances, to enjoy a better quality of life than I do. My own children don’t even get nicer things than I do. I can’t afford alcohol, which is why I don’t drink. You think I’m going to be ok with the crazy bum on the street buying hard liquor with what little money I’m practically killing myself to earn when I can’t even buy a pint of Jack Daniel’s or Revanche for myself? And if these people are destroying themselves with addictive drugs like crack and heroin, that is not my problem. I don’t support self-destruction, I didn’t choose to make them addicted to things, and I’m not going to pay for something they did to themselves.
But when people who ARE dependent receive aid out of the generosity of those who have enough that they can give, they should respond in gratitude and reflect that gratitude in their behavior by living up to the expectations of those who love them. What you don’t do is bemoan how you can’t do things because you are physically and intellectually unable. If you have a “free ride,” be grateful people are able and willing to give it to you. You certainly don’t complain about people who do things for you because of their ability to give.
Even in a socialist society, beware the free lunch still applies. If the state is feeding you and feeding you well, the state still expects you to support their ideology. An objectivist never gives anything away for free. If you receive money from an objectivist, no thanks is ever required. You earned it. It’s yours. If you are disabled and cannot work, then it just means they love you. An objectivist isn’t going to say what you can/can’t do because you are your own person. You’ve already done what was expected of you just by being kind, loving, gracious. If you choose to buy addictive drugs and alcohol, they may withdraw support because they don’t like the idea of hastening your death, but they aren’t going to make a point of saying what you can or can’t do. They will see a self-loving attitude and kind spirit as worthy. If I am dependent, then living a moral life is the least I can do for those who support me—not because I am obligated to them, but because I want to return something of worth to those who wish to deal with me in kindness. Socialism obligates. Sharing is immoral because it is an obligation between those who take and those who are taken from. True, heartfelt generosity is only possible under objectivism, and ethical capitalism is the vehicle by which honest trade is facilitated.
I don't just mean help or aid from the government. I mean help or aid from the average joe. Like taking time to help me and guide me through job searches or practice interviewing with me. Or, doing what you are doing now and answering some of my questions and try to guide me through things that make no sense to me.
Basically, the conservative person instead of trying to spend his time in politics trying to get rid of social programs take time with people who are on them and help them to get employed.
Here is an example of a personality test question of differing questions. Do I believe life is not fair? I didn't understand the question at all and what it was asking. 1. Why does my beliefs, feelings and emotions matter if there is an objective reality outside of myself. 2. What is fair and fairness? Are we doing a statistical analysis because the word can mean average? 3. Or do we mean just? But the concept of justice is open to interpretation because it seems like one group can define fairness differently then others. If we mean average what are our statistical points exactly?
Conservatives see taxing people who have money to give to the poor as theft while liberals don't? So, what is justice and fairness exactly? How was I to give a logical answer?
This is another reason I had difficulty with getting employment in the USA. Conservatives don't want people to be on welfare then are they willing to sit down with the person and help them with questions such as this?
Some conservatives are.
Most sensible conservatives aren’t against welfare because they don’t want to think of grandma cold, sick, and on the street. Being totally anti-welfare doesn’t make sense, not even for an objectivist. Logically, if you are opposed to welfare, you are the least hypocritical for accepting it.
It’s people who have the most potential and refuse to live any other way that perpetually end up on welfare that conservatives have the biggest problem with.
I also reject the premise that conservatives really are that stingy. I had more liberal friends when I lived in New York State. I dated a young woman with albinism. Her family was really nice, but they were really just old hippies. Big time liberals. Unitarian/Universalists, too. I was amazed how tight they were with money. It’s a sort of New England mindset where if you don’t absolutely need something, you don’t have it. And with other families, too, they’d drop their kids off at college and not see them again before they picked them up for Thanksgiving. Kids didn’t even have their own cars to get home. To me that was just weird. But it turns out that “frugal” and conservative are not synonymous, with conservatives being more generous and charitable. Where I grew up, more freedom means more earning power, and unlike New York we have more distance to cover to get to school, job, etc. The lifestyles of conservatives reflect values not just of money, but of the quality of life that comes with making it. We tend to be a little more loose with what we have. Welfare depends almost entirely on wealthy conservatives to prop up those who aren’t as willing from the outset to share the wealth. It’s not a simple matter of being unable...it’s understandable if people don’t give because they have nothing to give. The problem as I see it is that those who are screaming the loudest in support of welfare and charity are the least willing to contribute when they DO have money. I’m genuinely curious, for example, where all that money goes that people give to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and the Clinton Presidential Library And Massage Parlor. “Those” liberals less often give to helpful charities but will give generously to political causes and make welfare someone else’s job—meanwhile the liberal politicians and lawyers are getting crazy rich from doing...well, practically nothing.
And that’s just the collectivist mentality. Take what you didn’t earn, give to the “needy,” and those who end up with most of the wealth are those who are “most” in need—those being your funeral home directors, preachers, lawyers, community organizers, and out-of-work politicians turned authors and public speakers. They need that money more than you do so they can organize protests and pass legislation to get you an extra dollar or two a month, except they are limousine liberals who don’t actually care about the truly needy. There are givers and there are takers. You can’t be both.
As I’ve mentioned before, there are conservatives who will help you and give you advice. And those who have been the most successful if they are too busy to mentor you individually, they have books and blogs where you can find what you’re looking for. In other words, conservatives are already doing exactly what you said you think they should be doing, and they’re not even obligated to do it. Liberals, otoh, love to funnel money to victim classes while keeping it out of the hands of those with a genuine, short-term need, something my wife and I really have fallen victim to.
AngelRho, I do know that Dave Ramsey is doing some good stuff on his youtube videos. You said "It’s people who have the most potential and refuse to live any other way that perpetually end up on welfare that conservatives have the biggest problem with." The problem with that is how do they decide who has the most potential vs those who don't and how do they decide who is actually refusing vs those who are geninuely having difficulty? Thing is most conservatives I've spoken to when I've described my issues and asked my questions to them say I'm making excuses and have to high of expectations. What they don't grasp is what if my excuses are legit and what if I don't know what the reasonable expectations are while in high school, college and in adult life.
Here is the thing AngelRho. I have blind spots in certain areas so what may be common sense to most people is not so to me. So, here is my question(s). Can you accept that there is an objective reality out there and due to issues with some people's brain wiring that they may not be able to fully perceive that objective reality that most people can? And, can you accept that even if some of those were able to fully perceive this objective reality that not everyone in this sub group would be able to abide by it either again due to brain wiring or handicap?
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
28 Dec 2020, 10:21 pm
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Here is the thing AngelRho. I have blind spots in certain areas so what may be common sense to most people is not so to me. So, here is my question(s). Can you accept that there is an objective reality out there and due to issues with some people's brain wiring that they may not be able to fully perceive that objective reality that most people can? And, can you accept that even if some of those were able to fully perceive this objective reality that not everyone in this sub group would be able to abide by it either again due to brain wiring or handicap?
I do recognize the reality of this, but I already addressed that. If you CANNOT do the work, as in cannot possibly do it, it’s unreasonable to expect you to work. There are people who do care about disabled people who want to be productive and they do have special work programs and even training and accommodations to help just about anybody. There are counselors, therapists, even union-sponsored apprenticeships that work to help you understand exactly what you want to know. And I even mentioned some folks that have written books on various related and relevant topics. Even if you don’t quite have a good handle on objective reality, find someone who does and build your worldview from there.
Fighting that or arguing otherwise does make it look like all you’re doing is making excuses. I don’t mean with me, I mean with other people who may not understand right away where you’re coming from. Never waste time with such people.
And if you feel like conservatives you talk to are just being jerks, then why do you even care what they think? Obviously I think conservatism has more merit than liberalism. But there are @$$holes everywhere you go. I’m not really a big fan of the label “conservative” because I make up my own mind. I don’t need a label to define me, and there are even some pretty stupid libertarians out there. But there are those Nathaniel Branden types who don’t feel the need to follow any crowd and have the courage to go their own way, sometimes even at great cost.
Speaking of which, you might try finding a copy of The Six Pillars Of Self Esteem, part of which discusses personal responsibility.
29 Dec 2020, 12:41 am
Quote:
I do recognize the reality of this, but I already addressed that. If you CANNOT do the work, as in cannot possibly do it, it’s unreasonable to expect you to work.
True! But there are things I can do with certain supports.
Quote:
There are people who do care about disabled people who want to be productive and they do have special work programs and even training and accommodations to help just about anybody. There are counselors, therapists, even union-sponsored apprenticeships that work to help you understand exactly what you want to know. And I even mentioned some folks that have written books on various related and relevant topics. Even if you don’t quite have a good handle on objective reality, find someone who does and build your worldview from there.
Which is what I've been doing.
By the way, I'm going to explain a certain concept of the universal I and universal you. There are times when I say the word you or I I'm talking more in a general or universal sense. Example: When I say I have difficulty getting a job. I'm also talking about others with similar issues or greater. I'm not sure if I'm explaining right. I just realized this and I'm going to have to clarify when I talk in the universal I or universal you sense.
Quote:
Fighting that or arguing otherwise does make it look like all you’re doing is making excuses. I don’t mean with me, I mean with other people who may not understand right away where you’re coming from. Never waste time with such people.
Example: When a young man complains about his living situation with his parents to a conservative person all they will say is move out. The problem with that a lot of the advice conservative types give is usually the advice is overly-simplistic. If that young man was able to simply do so he would have. What this young man is really asking for is someone to guide him and help him to come up with a comprehensive plan.
Now, this is a young man just like his peers who knows hardly anything except what was mainly taught to him in his classroom. Now, all of a sudden when he turns 18 he is expected by society to do all this adult related stuff without being taught much of anything outside of the classroom. And, even his parents simply have the expectation that he should simply know as though at 18 God confers all of this knowledge from the heavens once everyone turns 18.
Quote:
And if you feel like conservatives you talk to are just being jerks, then why do you even care what they think?
Again, because they have a ton of clout as to whether my disability will be taken seriously by others or not just like mental retardation is. Those who are mentally ret*d are exempted and helped with certain things. Certain things are done for them. We as autistics don't get that same level of support and exemptions that they get. Even the blind gets certain things like braille on keypads or ramps for those in wheelchairs. Do we get things spelled out in specific, algorithmic and concrete terms which is what we need? Or, are we given the same bull of you're owed nothing. What about exemptions from things like eye contact? As long as our disability is not taken seriously and their influence makes that so then we do have to care what they think.
Quote:
Obviously I think conservatism has more merit than liberalism. But there are @$$holes everywhere you go.
Again, these @$$holes have a lot of clout so I do take them and their philosophy seriously.
Quote:
I’m not really a big fan of the label “conservative” because I make up my own mind. I don’t need a label to define me, and there are even some pretty stupid libertarians out there. But there are those Nathaniel Branden types who don’t feel the need to follow any crowd and have the courage to go their own way, sometimes even at great cost.
What is with the idea of not having labels at all? If we have no labels then how is it possible to talk about different concepts. You're logical. You're rational. You're objective. How is having no labels even logical at all? How does it make sense to you? I don't even remotely grasp this at all. Another thing that would have to be explained to me.
Quote:
Speaking of which, you might try finding a copy of The Six Pillars Of Self Esteem, part of which discusses personal responsibility.
I'm still reading Carnegie. I love the fact he gives very specific examples in specific instances of what he would do. His book is extremely well written. I do love how he got the price increase for the venue he had lowered from 300% to 50%
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,514
Location: the island of defective toy santas
12 Jan 2021, 2:58 am
Another problem I have with personal responsibility is this. Let's say we have a chain of people and chain of events. A student drops out of high school. He made the decision to drop out of high school. Does he bare the consequences of his actions? Yes, he does.
I have a question. Should he get all of the pie or are there others who deserve some of the responsibility pie as well? Where were the teachers exactly? Where were the parents? What sort of environment this kid was in? What were the influences that he had? Who's fault and responsibility was it that he had certain influences?
Another example: College student who majors in IT and has difficulty finding a job. Who's fault was this? Was this based upon decisions he made? Did his decisions help to contribute to his circumstances? Again, should he receive 100% of the responsibility pie for his failure or are others responsible as well? What about those who made the impression that college would guarantee one a job or college was the way? What about his parents as well? Do they share in any of the responsibility pie for encouraging him to go to college in the first place and concentrating so much on academics without explaining other things like internships? What about those who keep saying it is all about one's attitude? What about academic advisors and guidance counselors who never explained that experience was a must and never told one how to get that experience? Should he receive 100% of the responsibility pie or do others play a role as well and should receive some of the pie as well?
If these two people should be made responsible for their decisions then shouldn't others who were stakeholders in their lives should share in this pie? How is personal responsibility reasonable if others are stakeholders in their lives especially if they simply can't get rid of them and they have influence and clout over your life especially at your formative years?
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,514
Location: the island of defective toy santas
12 Jan 2021, 4:33 am
cubedemon6073 wrote:
I have a question. Should he get all of the pie or are there others who deserve some of the responsibility pie as well? Where were the teachers exactly? Where were the parents? What sort of environment this kid was in? What were the influences that he had? Who's fault and responsibility was it that he had certain influences?
If he had a learning disability I would wonder if he didn't get any support from his school and parents. Were the parents in denial and denied all help for him in school when the teachers consulted his parents and wanted to put him on the IEP. Were the parents in denial and wanted a normal child so they pretended he was normal than trying to help him so he can succeed and finish school and be given some job training.
Was the kid badly bullied he quit school?
Quote:
Another example: College student who majors in IT and has difficulty finding a job. Who's fault was this? Was this based upon decisions he made?
If he picked a field that has limited openings, yes it could be his fault. He could have studied in another field and pick a field that is always in high demand for employees like being a doctor for example or a teacher or a nurse.
Think of actors, they go to college and study drama but they also study in another field too because acting is a gig and it is not always guaranteed you will make a living and become a star, that is less than 5% who make it into Hollywood and end up with starring roles. Many actors have a side job so they are working while they are not acting.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.
12 Jan 2021, 8:30 pm
League_Girl wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
I have a question. Should he get all of the pie or are there others who deserve some of the responsibility pie as well? Where were the teachers exactly? Where were the parents? What sort of environment this kid was in? What were the influences that he had? Who's fault and responsibility was it that he had certain influences?
If he had a learning disability I would wonder if he didn't get any support from his school and parents. Were the parents in denial and denied all help for him in school when the teachers consulted his parents and wanted to put him on the IEP. Were the parents in denial and wanted a normal child so they pretended he was normal than trying to help him so he can succeed and finish school and be given some job training.
Was the kid badly bullied he quit school?
Quote:
Another example: College student who majors in IT and has difficulty finding a job. Who's fault was this? Was this based upon decisions he made?
If he picked a field that has limited openings, yes it could be his fault. He could have studied in another field and pick a field that is always in high demand for employees like being a doctor for example or a teacher or a nurse.
Think of actors, they go to college and study drama but they also study in another field too because acting is a gig and it is not always guaranteed you will make a living and become a star, that is less than 5% who make it into Hollywood and end up with starring roles. Many actors have a side job so they are working while they are not acting.
For the college student what if IT was presented as though it was a high demand field for employees? And, what if the presentation growing up was that one can do anything they set their mind to, achieve what they want if they work hard at it and be what they want to be? And, what if that person going to college doesn't he know he's supposed to check for what is in demand vs what is not in demand? And, if internships are expected of him to be employed as part of one's working experience what if one didn't understand this until he graduated college?
What if one never heard of the word internship until he entered college for the first time and looked at the entire classes he needed to take? And, even when going to college one only has a partial definition of what an internship is and doesn't he know one doesn't even need to do college to even do internships until he actually graduates? How could one even research something when one doesn't even realize the circumstances that surround the problem?
And, if doing all this including but not limited to volunteer work, home labs, internships, etc guarantees nothing then it makes absolutely no sense to make the claim that Personal responsibility or Individual Responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions and that a corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.
But, to cause our actions doesn't there have to be intent behind the actions we cause? The college student made his decisions and did the things under what he reasonably thought was true. If this college student is responsible for the decisions he made then shouldn't others have some responsibility as well for painting a certain picture and presenting things a certain way? With the understanding the college student had could he have acted in any other way? Could he have researched things especially if he was ignorant about the circumstances surrounding the problem? I say no. If he is responsible and ignorance is not an excuse (which I think is BS by the way) then others should have some responsibility and culpability as well. Should that college student receive all of the responsibility pie or should responsibility be shared? I think it should be shared.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
12 Jan 2021, 9:22 pm
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Another problem I have with personal responsibility is this. Let's say we have a chain of people and chain of events. A student drops out of high school. He made the decision to drop out of high school. Does he bare the consequences of his actions? Yes, he does.
I have a question. Should he get all of the pie or are there others who deserve some of the responsibility pie as well? Where were the teachers exactly? Where were the parents? What sort of environment this kid was in? What were the influences that he had? Who's fault and responsibility was it that he had certain influences?
Another example: College student who majors in IT and has difficulty finding a job. Who's fault was this? Was this based upon decisions he made? Did his decisions help to contribute to his circumstances? Again, should he receive 100% of the responsibility pie for his failure or are others responsible as well? What about those who made the impression that college would guarantee one a job or college was the way? What about his parents as well? Do they share in any of the responsibility pie for encouraging him to go to college in the first place and concentrating so much on academics without explaining other things like internships? What about those who keep saying it is all about one's attitude? What about academic advisors and guidance counselors who never explained that experience was a must and never told one how to get that experience? Should he receive 100% of the responsibility pie or do others play a role as well and should receive some of the pie as well?
If these two people should be made responsible for their decisions then shouldn't others who were stakeholders in their lives should share in this pie? How is personal responsibility reasonable if others are stakeholders in their lives especially if they simply can't get rid of them and they have influence and clout over your life especially at your formative years?
I have a question. Should he get all of the pie or are there others who deserve some of the responsibility pie as well? Where were the teachers exactly? Where were the parents? What sort of environment this kid was in? What were the influences that he had? Who's fault and responsibility was it that he had certain influences?
Another example: College student who majors in IT and has difficulty finding a job. Who's fault was this? Was this based upon decisions he made? Did his decisions help to contribute to his circumstances? Again, should he receive 100% of the responsibility pie for his failure or are others responsible as well? What about those who made the impression that college would guarantee one a job or college was the way? What about his parents as well? Do they share in any of the responsibility pie for encouraging him to go to college in the first place and concentrating so much on academics without explaining other things like internships? What about those who keep saying it is all about one's attitude? What about academic advisors and guidance counselors who never explained that experience was a must and never told one how to get that experience? Should he receive 100% of the responsibility pie or do others play a role as well and should receive some of the pie as well?
If these two people should be made responsible for their decisions then shouldn't others who were stakeholders in their lives should share in this pie? How is personal responsibility reasonable if others are stakeholders in their lives especially if they simply can't get rid of them and they have influence and clout over your life especially at your formative years?
I can’t really contribute much more, even though I’ve thoroughly enjoyed discussing this. I have a high tolerance for repeating myself and making lengthy posts, but I’m running out of steam.
My answer here is the same as the other times: No parent or teacher is ever OBLIGATED to tell someone these things. Never, ever. It is not the job of a parent, teacher, government, or anyone else to MAKE you successful. Nobody owes you an easy life. And even when you DO run across someone who finds joy in telling you these things, you’re not even going to really understand EVERYTHING, you aren’t going to do everything, and most of the time helpful people don’t have ALL the answers and all you get from them is the best they have to offer from THEIR experience. Actual mileage may vary.
All anyone has is their own experiences. The only perspective you really have that matters is YOURS. The only thing I know is that I never asked to be born, and the only thing I feel anyone ever owed me was to keep me alive just long enough to reach adulthood. I have rarely, if I ever have, seen success in realizing my own ideas when other people HAD to be involved. All I have ever really had on this earth to depend on was myself.
Is it wrong for people to be misleading? Yes. Was my education entirely sufficient in pointing me in the best direction for my career? Heck no. And I still don’t have ALL the answers. But I do know that if I care to keep moving forward, I have to seek those answers out for myself. Nobody can do it for me, and I’ve learned not to trust people who say that they can.
Peace out.
12 Jan 2021, 9:32 pm
I know what you mean.
No "guru type" is ever going to sway me!
I really wasn't the type to listen to advice----and that really galled my mother. She was exasperated to the point where she felt she had to threaten to send me to a group home.
However....something in my mind told me that I was going to achieve at least minimal success---enough to go out on my own and be independent.
I haven't done great things in my life; but, by and large, I didn't have to depend on my parents for shelter and support after the age of 20.
13 Jan 2021, 12:07 am
I've decided to rewrite what I wrote before.
I want you all to do this as an exercise. Imagine a world in which no one is owed truth on any level including the legal level. Imagine I'm not owed the truth about the product I'm buying and I'm not obligated to tell the truth about a product I'm selling. What would this world look like? How would it turn out?
Visualize what such a world would look like.
Now, imagine a world in which we were all owed truth on any level. Visualize what this world would look like.
Imagine both worlds. How would these worlds be? How would it turn out?
Now, imagine that there are some truths we are simply owed. Now, imagine this third possible world that makes exceptions to what we are all owed when it comes to truth.
Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 13 Jan 2021, 3:25 am, edited 5 times in total.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,514
Location: the island of defective toy santas
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
13 Jan 2021, 12:56 pm
cubedemon6073 wrote:
I've decided to rewrite what I wrote before.
I want you all to do this as an exercise. Imagine a world in which no one is owed truth on any level including the legal level. Imagine I'm not owed the truth about the product I'm buying and I'm not obligated to tell the truth about a product I'm selling. What would this world look like? How would it turn out?
Visualize what such a world would look like.
Now, imagine a world in which we were all owed truth on any level. Visualize what this world would look like.
Imagine both worlds. How would these worlds be? How would it turn out?
Now, imagine that there are some truths we are simply owed. Now, imagine this third possible world that makes exceptions to what we are all owed when it comes to truth.
I want you all to do this as an exercise. Imagine a world in which no one is owed truth on any level including the legal level. Imagine I'm not owed the truth about the product I'm buying and I'm not obligated to tell the truth about a product I'm selling. What would this world look like? How would it turn out?
Visualize what such a world would look like.
Now, imagine a world in which we were all owed truth on any level. Visualize what this world would look like.
Imagine both worlds. How would these worlds be? How would it turn out?
Now, imagine that there are some truths we are simply owed. Now, imagine this third possible world that makes exceptions to what we are all owed when it comes to truth.
Ok, but again...not sure how I can contribute here. The truth is the least that anyone is owed. What I'm saying is that good people don't want to consciously lie or withhold something. But nobody can read minds, either, nor can they be held responsible for not telling YOU what YOU need to know. It's your responsibility to either figure things out on your own or figure out what questions to ask. Nobody can do that for you.
Of course I think the world would be best if everyone was always truthful. It's not telling the truth that's the problem, but rather people being honest with themselves.
13 Jan 2021, 1:13 pm
AngelRho wrote:
... The truth is the least that anyone is owed. What I'm saying is that good people don't want to consciously lie or withhold something. But nobody can read minds, either, nor can they be held responsible for not telling YOU what YOU need to know. It's your responsibility to either figure things out on your own or figure out what questions to ask. Nobody can do that for you...
A wise professor once told her students, "I can explain it all to you; but I cannot understand any of it for you -- that is your responsibility."
_________________
