I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say “life ain’t fair” in response to complaints about sexual harassment, poor schools, racial discrimination, etc.
Marc
As regards human actions? Maybe not. But there is more to life than just human actions.
The universe is not always fair. That can’t be changed, and sometimes the effort to enforce perfect equity is more trouble than it is worth.
I hear the “it’s not fair!” complaint as often about unalterable factors as I do about the rest. “It’s not fair that she gets better grades and doesn’t study as hard as me!” “It’s not fair that he got the job just because the boss likes him better for not dyeing his har.” Sometimes it’s even true. So?
And that might be the key. Nobody complains when they get something they didn’t earn. Only the other way around.
Regards,
Shodan
Here you are just making shit up.
Regards,
Shodan
And how to you break the cycle of insufficient emphasis on education at home without spending more on proper education for the poor? This is the point I was getting at. I agree that its a cycle and that it needs to be broken. IMO you break it by teaching civic responsibility and emphasize education to the children. You aren’t likely to change the bad habbits of someone who’s had those bad habbits for 20 or 30 years. You can influence the young though.
And if/when this happens, you won’t need to suck it up anymore than anyone else needs to suck it up - because you’re playing on a even plane. You learn, you work hard, you have opportunities. Why is it that the poor have to put in a disproportionate amount of effort to achieve a middle-class income than the middle-class and wealthy do? And that they’re told to ‘suck it up’?
Some folks evidently would put “Suck It Up” on the coinage if they had the chance.
Hey, nice double meaning there. Go me. 
I was poor. I learned, I worked somewhat hard, and I got opportunities. If I worked really hard, I’d be far better off. Would I have preferred Bill Gates as a father? Sure. Would I have preferred someone else paying for my education? Sure. But, it didn’t happen, so I sucked it up because “life ain’t fair”. If life were fair, I’d live forever thus having the ability to do all the things I ever wanted to do.
Because they are starting from further back, and that will be true no matter how much the taxpayer spends on the schools.
Increased spending is something the taxpayer can do, but unless the students and parents “suck it up” and make an extra effort, the increased spending will not allow the students to receive a middle-class education and are thus less likely to achieve a middle-class income.
Case in point: Washington, DC.
(Bolding added.)
Is that “fair”? What difference does it make? “Life is not fair” is descriptive, not proscriptive. Maybe it isn’t fair that you never met your father, or that your mother is only fifteen years older than you, or that you got passed along for six years without getting beyond “The Cat sat on a mat.”
Nonetheless, unless you “suck it up”, you are more likely to be and remain poor. That’s how it is, whether you are happy about it and accept it or not.
It’s like they say about educational tests in general. The SATs are not unfair. Life is unfair. The SATs just measure the result.
Regards,
Shodan
why shouldn’t everyone’s elementary education be fair?
anecdotal evidence really doesn’t go far with me. When you can point to significant percentages of the poor having the same access to the same elementary and highschool education and potential to move up in life as the middle class, let me know.
Even though I’m a cynic at heart, I guess I’m more optimistic about our chances in the long term.
I’m against it not because it’s taboo but because it’s unethical. The two just happen to overlap. If you base these things on taboos, it’s possible that taboos will change and you’re left with the possibility of pedophilia becoming aceptable.
How do you solve this fairness problem then? How to mitigate the bad luck of being born into poverty without changing emphasis on education and healthcare (to minimize the amount of poor children by providing access to birth control)? Or is this in your view, just a fact of like, that the poor will always exist (to which i semi-agree) and that there’s not really anything we could/should do about it?
Why shouldn’t I be able to make it in the major leagues? I am just as good and worthy a person as Pete Rose.
They don’t - that’s the point. It is not a problem that can be solved without a disproportionate effort, mostly from the parents and students who are poor.
“Life is unfair” means that sometimes, you have to accept that nothing can be done to make it fair. You just have to deal with its unfairness.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s not even close to being a good comparison. We’re talking about children and basic education, not individual talent and career choices.
Which gets us back into the cycle! Parents who don’t care about education have kids who don’t care about education. You argue that it can’t be broken? I argue that it can, with a little extra effort and redirection in the schools, over a couple generations.
I wish you luck in holding on to that optimism. Really, I do. We need more idealists. I started out as one, myself, but fell by the wayside. Now, I hold out utterly no hope that humanity will ever get “better.” The pessimist in me says that humans have always been, and will always be, the same, even unto the ends of the earth.
Hope is a beautiful, but fragile thing.
Well, it used to be, in some cultures.
Let’s think for a moment about why you feel it’s unethical. If you had lived a thousand years ago, you’d probably be quite comfortable with the notion of raping your slave girls. That’s what you’d bought them for, after all-- to serve all of your needs. And they weren’t “human” anyway, so you didn’t have to care how they felt-- actually, you’d probably be a bit surprised by the notion that they might have feelings at all. Even into the Victorian era (and even today, in some parts of the world) child prostitution was considered no more of a social evil than protitution in of itself.
Today, we look at children differently, as worthy of protection, even if they’re poor. Our cultural perceptions of childhood have changed, and now we consider it so appalling to want to have sex with children that we’ve even had debates on this board as to whether pedophilia is a bona fide mental illness.
I think it’s horrific, myself, but I don’t believe for a moment that I’d still have some sort of “instintual” abohorrence to it if I’d been raised in another culture, in another time.
And, yes, it’s entirely possible that 500 years from now, pedophilia will once again be socially acceptable, as could wife-beating, or torturing animals, or anything. Who knows? I don’t believe that society “evolves” in a straight line towards freedom and equality. Those things are chreished now, but we can’t assume that social/economic conditions will always stay the same. Wealth gives Man the luxury of human rights. Take that wealth away and all bets are off.
Incest taboos are another area of interest in this discussion. Every culture has an incest taboo-- it’s one of the few universal constants in mankind, but the definition of incest varies widely. Our own culture thinks it’s kind of icky to marry one’s cousin, but there are some cultures in which it’s expected. In ancient Egypt, brother-sister marriage was common among the royalty, and became so culturally pervasive that the words “my sister” were interchangable with “my wife.” Some cultures (even today) permitted father-daughter sex, though mostly in ritual situations.
My point is that taboos are extremely flexible and change with cultures. To you, the idea of marrying your sister may be absolutely disgusting, but you wouldn’t have had that reaction if you were an Egyptian prince.
Talent is distributed unfairly. Career choice is largely a function of talent, effort, inclination, and opportunity. There’s nothing that can be done about the talent or the inclination. Which leaves opportunity, which can be affected by society (subject to the same limitations as for everyone else), and effort, which only the parents and students can affect.
“A little extra effort” on whose part? The parents and the students? I thought you were defining the need for an extra effort by them as “unfair”.
To break “the cycle” takes a disproportionate effort by those who are least to blame - the students. This is unfair, by many definitions.
It is nevertheless true. And no useful end is achieved by pretending that much will be done without it.
Regards,
Shodan
An extra effort by society.
I take him a lot more seriously than I take you. After all, he actually bases a paragraph on ideas, rather than namecalling and obscenity.
Well, that’s a whole 'nother thread in itself. Basically I think it’s possible to deduce a system of ethics without appeal to morality or taboo. At its simplest, it’s the old “do unto others”. Everybody has the same basic worth and the same right to autonomy. Granted, that doesn’t automatically translate across cultures, but I think it’s possible for it to arise in any of them.
In general, you’re right, though. We’re a product of our time, which is why I value rationalism as a basis of our actions, since it should be more consistent than cultural whim.
I think it just requires empathy, which I assume most people have. I have a natural aversion to forcing my will on other people. I know not everyone does, but I would bet at least a simple majority of us do.
Sadly, that is true. My hope is based on the fact that once an idea (such as individual freedom and equality) has been discovered, it can never be lost completely. Although looking at how quickly America has shifted to the far right, my pessimism kicks in again.
True. As far as I’m concerned, as long as the interested parties are consenting adults, there’s nothing wrong with it. I can at least see where the original taboo had a rational basis, as reproduction between closely related creatures tends to produce less viable offspring and degrades the community over time. It’s the taboos against things that harm no one that I’m against. Or, as you said earlier, “taste”.
And if the parents and the students don’t “suck it up” and give that extra, unfair effort, it won’t help, as the examples of Washington DC and New Jersey demonstrate.
Regards,
Shodan
The poor do not have to put in a disproportionate amount of effort into achieving middle income. The same math taught in “rich kids” school is the same math taught in every other school. Failure in poorer neighborhoods is a function of environment. There is less parent involvement because 15 year old girls are mothers in name only. They (along with the sperm donor father) lack virtually every parenting skill needed to produce a socially functional child. Society doesn’t have the balls to stop this cycle of poverty by separating children from incompetent parents. There was a time when that was true but those days are LONG gone.
The only solution is to replace bad parents with role models that are functionally successful during school hours. There are rare examples of this in school systems where the principal acts on the knowledge that kids need surrogate parents. You cannot buy this kind of person because it’s social unacceptable to codify the requirements. Any attempt at parenting-by-proxy through a school system would be challenged in court by the ACLU as harassment. You cannot treat poor children differently.