Languish.org

See 25 year debt thread for details.

In spirit or regular?

Yes in the developed world sense. No in a universal sense.

If we apply the universal sense is it actually possible for anyone in Canada to be poor?

I think it depends on how you define 'poor'.  Context is everything.

No really a pollable question.

No really?

I'm poor.  :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
No really a pollable question.

True, but malthus was being mean and using actual data and stuff.  DG has to get data that supports his position from somewhere, and this will become "polls show that most..." or "polls show that almost half..." data in a few hours.

Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2013, 06:27:47 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
No really a pollable question.

True, but malthus was being mean and using actual data and stuff.  DG has to get data that supports his position from somewhere, and this will become "polls show that most..." or "polls show that almost half..." data in a few hours.

The standard definition of poverty is ill-suited for Malthus's case.  Comparing a poor person with young Malthus is like comparing someone who walks the tight rope 1000 feet up from the ground, and someone who does it 1 foot off the ground.  It's the same kind of exercise, but it's not really.  The different levels of anxiety about your future well-being makes the two experiences vastly different. 

This is precisely the kind of question that is best answered with judgment sprinkled in, rather than purely with numbers.  Given the poll results so far, my faith in the judgment of Languish posters has been well-justified.  :)

Good God, no.  It's part of his self-made man story, to which liberals are unfortunately not immune, though at least it usually doesn't ordinarily serve as the foundational justification for higher-order douchiness with folks like Mal.

This thread frightens and confuses me.

You aren't poor until you have mixed all the ingredients in your apartment into a "creamed corn and Bisquick" casserole.

Malthus' theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM)

No.  Jews in North America just aren't poor.  Not in any of our lifetimes, anyway.  Except maybe grumbler's.

My brother in law comes from a prominent Midwestern family, one with a shit ton of money.  Some of them lead a playboyish lifestyle without a care in the world, some--like him--actually decided to be responsible, get advanced degrees and work for a living even though they wouldn't otherwise have to, and some simply do the weirdo commune-farming-new-age-homeotherapy-in-a-thatched-hut somewhere.

But even for those batshit fruitcakes who pursue the goofball Birkenstock artsy-fartsy lifestyle of selling pottery made by retard Mongo kids to increase awareness in renewable energy on the Moon, the money's never too far away when they actually need it.

So there's poverty, and then there's poverty.

Back in the day on EUOT, I saw Malthus eat out of a dumpster.

What brought this on?

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
Back in the day on EUOT, I saw Malthus eat out of a dumpster.

What brought this on?

He thought he was in Kentucky?

Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2013, 09:19:38 PM
No.  Jews in North America just aren't poor.  Not in any of our lifetimes, anyway.  Except maybe grumbler's.

If only they would take out subscriptions to support their local Jewish press. Cheap bastards. ;)

I can see Malthus' point.  But on the other hand, growing up in a well-to-do highly educated family and then spending a few years leading an alternative lifestyle before going back to school to become a successful lawyer is not really what is associated with being "poor".  It's a conundrum.

My own background was an odd mix of very high education but almost no money, to the point of often not being able to afford supplies such as toothpaste and being in constant panicked danger of losing the house.  On the other hand, I learned valuable educational, thinking, and middle class social skills from my family, which I could then leverage into a comfortable life after university.  Contrasted to most of my old schoolmates (who lived in the same neighbourhood and thus also had little money, but generally poorly educated parents), I've done much better for myself.  Don't know if that counts as being poor or not, either.

Quote from: PDH on June 21, 2013, 10:05:50 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
Back in the day on EUOT, I saw Malthus eat out of a dumpster.

What brought this on?

He thought he was in Kentucky?

Surely Cal can point to gourmet gas station food.  ;)

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
What brought this on?

DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

Quote from: The Larch on June 21, 2013, 08:39:57 PM
Malthus' theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM)

:lol:

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
What brought this on?

DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

Actually, Malthus took that position that after having grown up in a highly educated family and after having taken his undergraduate degree free of charge because his father was a professor at the university he attended, he should be considered as having been poor because in the brief time between his upper class livestyle and law school he spent four years earning insufficient money to match the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed.

Its not all his fault though.  After hanging around with all those trustaferians Malthus may not have realized that this a fairly normal transition that most all people go through after leaving home.

When this was pointed out to him he also argued strenously that the risk that he might have suffered a form of downward mobility was proof that he was in fact poor and he did live like the common people.  Of course, the point Malthus missed is that if he had been poor then downward mobility would not just have been a risk but a fact.  The poor dont risk downward mobility.  They are already there.

Malthus needs to spend a couple weeks living paycheque to paycheque in a rent controlled apartment building where Mayor Ford buys his crack to know what poverty is.

I suppose Malthus is richer than me every step of the way in his life. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2013, 08:58:46 AM

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
What brought this on?

DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

Actually, Malthus took that position that after having grown up in a highly educated family and after having taken his undergraduate degree free of charge because his father was a professor at the university he attended, he should be considered as having been poor because in the brief time between his upper class livestyle and law school he spent four years earning insufficient money to match the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed.

Its not all his fault though.  After hanging around with all those trustaferians Malthus may not have realized that this a fairly normal transition that most all people go through after leaving home.

When this was pointed out to him he also argued strenously that the risk that he might have suffered a form of downward mobility was proof that he was in fact poor and he did live like the common people.  Of course, the point Malthus missed is that if he had been poor then downward mobility would not just have been a risk but a fact.  The poor dont risk downward mobility.  They are already there.

As I pointed out in the other thread, it is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm

According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.

Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make.   :hmm:

Perhaps, CC, you ought to contact Statistics Canada and tell them what being poor "really" means - it evidently has nothing to do with how much you earn per year, but must also take into account one's family circumstances; all those 20 and 30 year olds complaining about the fact that there are no jobs for college graduates are not really "poor" at all, because look - they are educated. Even if they are making minimum wage washing dishes, that doesn't count.  :)

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
What brought this on?

DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

I'm not trying to build an argumentum ad populum, the sizable majority agrees with me.

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
What brought this on?

DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

Yup. On a forum in which my tag-line is that I buy $2000 strollers, no less.  :lol:

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 10:57:05 AM

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 09:34:17 PM
What brought this on?

DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

I'm not trying to build an argumentum ad populum, the sizable majority agrees with me.

:lol:

Please tell me this is a joke.

Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 10:56:43 AM
As I pointed out in the other thread, it is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm

According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.

Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make.   :hmm:

Perhaps, CC, you ought to contact Statistics Canada and tell them what being poor "really" means - it evidently has nothing to do with how much you earn per year, but must also take into account one's family circumstances; all those 20 and 30 year olds complaining about the fact that there are no jobs for college graduates are not really "poor" at all, because look - they are educated. Even if they are making minimum wage washing dishes, that doesn't count.  :)

Statistics and statistical definitions can always be misleading in individual cases, especially corner cases.  That's why people who work with statistics, if they are any good, apply judgment when using them.

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 11:01:27 AM

Statistics and statistical definitions can always be misleading in individual cases, especially corner cases.  That's why people who work with statistics, if they are any good, apply judgment when using them.

You didn't actually look at the links, did you.

There are major debates about how to define "poverty". None of the debates frame the issue the way you and CC wish it to be framed.

We can either believe you, or the scientists working in this field.

Of course, you can take comfort in your popular vote. In some places, that trumps stuff like facts and evidence. :D

I don't think poverty experts spent a lot of time thinking about how they should classify rich kids slumming it.  Somehow I don't think that's the burning issue if you're in that field.  You are a corner case, and as such, no definition of poverty will both be useful and encompass your situation.  This is the kind of question that is best answered by common sense rather than a courtroom trial with expert witnesses.

Quote from: Josephus on June 22, 2013, 09:02:26 AM
Malthus needs to spend a couple weeks living paycheque to paycheque in a rent controlled apartment building where Mayor Ford buys his crack to know what poverty is.

:huh:

I lived in communial houses, paycheque to paycheque, while people around me dealt drugs. Wasn't the Ford brothers though, they were in Etobicoke at the time.  :D

A typical story from that time: I was trying to get some sleep when these guys came over to buy hash from another guy living there. They get really, really high, and refuse to leave. One falls asleep in a pile of ratty blankets in the courer. He really stank of BO.

Still later that night - more guys come, to buy LSD. I hear "WTF is that SMELL?" from the other room. Turns out the new guys objected to the stink of the sleeping guy. That AM, when I get up, I find that they had, by way of comment, dumped the garbage on him before they left - he didn't wake up, so was happily sleeping, like a pig in a manger, in a pile of coffee grinds, banana peels, etc. 

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 11:22:46 AM
I don't think poverty experts spent a lot of time thinking about how they should classify rich kids slumming it.  Somehow I don't think that's the burning issue if you're in that field.  You are a corner case, and as such, no definition of poverty will both be useful and encompass your situation.  This is the kind of question that is best answered by common sense rather than a courtroom trial with expert witnesses.

In short, don't confuse you with facts because you know the truth when you see it? Got it.  :D

Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 11:34:01 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 11:22:46 AM
I don't think poverty experts spent a lot of time thinking about how they should classify rich kids slumming it.  Somehow I don't think that's the burning issue if you're in that field.  You are a corner case, and as such, no definition of poverty will both be useful and encompass your situation.  This is the kind of question that is best answered by common sense rather than a courtroom trial with expert witnesses.

In short, don't confuse you with facts because you know the truth when you see it? Got it.  :D

No, it's more like "keep the facts in their context".

Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 11:31:12 AM
I lived in communial houses, paycheque to paycheque, while people around me dealt drugs. Wasn't the Ford brothers though, they were in Etobicoke at the time.  :D

A typical story from that time: I was trying to get some sleep when these guys came over to buy hash from another guy living there. They get really, really high, and refuse to leave. One falls asleep in a pile of ratty blankets in the courer. He really stank of BO.

Still later that night - more guys come, to buy LSD. I hear "WTF is that SMELL?" from the other room. Turns out the new guys objected to the stink of the sleeping guy. That AM, when I get up, I find that they had, by way of comment, dumped the garbage on him before they left - he didn't wake up, so was happily sleeping, like a pig in a manger, in a pile of coffee grinds, banana peels, etc.

So who's arguing that this is poverty or being poor; you or DG?

So Malthus was slumming for a couple of years. Got it.

I hope someday I am in a situation where people insist I couldn't possibly have ever known poverty  :)

Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 11:31:12 AM


:huh:

I lived in communial houses, paycheque to paycheque, while people around me dealt drugs. Wasn't the Ford brothers though, they were in Etobicoke at the time.  :D

A typical story from that time: I was trying to get some sleep when these guys came over to buy hash from another guy living there. They get really, really high, and refuse to leave. One falls asleep in a pile of ratty blankets in the courer. He really stank of BO.

Still later that night - more guys come, to buy LSD. I hear "WTF is that SMELL?" from the other room. Turns out the new guys objected to the stink of the sleeping guy. That AM, when I get up, I find that they had, by way of comment, dumped the garbage on him before they left - he didn't wake up, so was happily sleeping, like a pig in a manger, in a pile of coffee grinds, banana peels, etc.

I think you're conflating poor choice of friends with poverty.

I chose to live in poverty for a while, to show I could make it.  Still, I always knew that I had a safety net (still do, to be honest).  My family, while not super rich, has more than enough money.  My own adventures, which mirror Malthus to some degree, always had the "back of the mind" reassurance that if things went really, really bad I was only a collect phone call away from help.

Sheilbh was poor once. He briefly lived in a slightly smaller castle.

Garbon was poor once.  He considered going to Columbia.

I've never been poor. :cool:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 22, 2013, 10:37:41 AM
I suppose Malthus is richer than me every step of the way in his life.

Well, he does live in Canada instead of China.  :P

I was poor growing up (received free lunch at school; parents worked minimum wage type jobs), but now I am middle class as an adult. America is beautiful. :)

Quote from: merithyn on June 22, 2013, 12:15:04 PM
I think you're conflating poor choice of friends college off-campus living with poverty.

It's certainly possible for a child of upper-class parents to be poor, but we'd have to dig deeper to know. On one hand you have Mitt Romney's story about how him and Ann lived in a small one bedroom apartment where they ate their meals on an ironing board that folded out of the wall. They were certainly not living glamorously, but why were they living that way, and how far removed was Romney from the support of his father's vast wealth whenever he needed it? That's what I view as the core question in the Malthus situation, it's not enough to just live poor, if you genuinely had no ability to receive support from your parents then in essence their wealth was immaterial and you were legitimately poor. If financial assistance was a phone call (that you chose not to make) away, then you were not poor.

I'm not particularly concerned with statistical definitions, while DGuller is horrible and I'd love to see him buried up to his neck in dirt and watch people hurl car batteries at him til he was dead, he has a point--statistical definitions generally fail to be that important when talking about the "marginal cases" (the term I would use over corner cases.) Definitions of professional statisticians need not be what defines our conversations here. I often point out in conversations about urban v. rural matters that the U.S. Census defines any place that is a Census Designated Place with over 2,500 people to be urban. But when most people say "urban" they don't intend it to include some bumfuck town in Virginia with 3,000 people and no stop lights. They would think of that as a rural area or something neither urban nor rural, but they wouldn't think of it as "real urban." Same thing with being poor, there is obviously a statistical definition and in the United States at least it's based on income. If you fell below that level you could call yourself "poor" in that sense, but if you had access to untapped resources that easily could have dramatically enhanced your life then at best you were "living poor" you were never truly poor.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Garbon was poor once.  He considered going to Columbia.

No actually that's not true. I'm actually confused as to why I never applied to Columbia given that I had wanted to live in a big city at the time.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 01:34:10 PM
I'm not particularly concerned with statistical definitions, while DGuller is horrible and I'd love to see him buried up to his neck in dirt and watch people hurl car batteries at him til he was dead

:hmm: That's not nice.  :mad:

Valmy says that OvB is banned.

Why car batteries?  Not a natural choice.

Malthus has never claimed that if he were dying of starvation or on the verge of having his power cut off his parents wouldn't have helped him out.  I don't think that's a fair test of "poor."  If I understand him correctly, his parents made it clear they were not going to subsidize his living expenses.  So he was to all intents and purposes living the life of a poor person.  He earned little income and lived modestly.

I was joking about slumming.  I was joking because Malthus gave no indication that he had bountiful other employment opportunities that would have paid much more, but which he declined because he wanted to keep it real or whatever.  I got the sense that he got out of college with an anthropology degree, and he did the best he could, which was a shit job working at a pottery shop.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2013, 02:22:23 PM
Why car batteries?  Not a natural choice.

They have handles.  You could whip those fuckers at him like the hammer throw in the Olympics.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2013, 02:27:45 PM
They have handles.  You could whip those fuckers at him like the hammer throw in the Olympics.

They also weigh six tons.  You could throw one about a foot and a half.  Plus one hit and he's in dead Jew storage.  For a successful stoning you want it to take a while.  You want an eyeball dangling out for 20 minutes while he sobs for mercy.

Maybe just use those volleyballs from gym, the ones with the open seam you could whip like a motherfucker in dodgeball, and just induce concussions that will fuck him up 20 years later.

Maybe use a croquet mallet, step on his head and use it as a striker to score through the wicket.  That'll work.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Garbon was poor once.  He considered going to Columbia.

What's wrong with Columbia? :unsure:

Quote from: Iormlund on June 22, 2013, 02:49:34 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Garbon was poor once.  He considered going to Columbia.

What's wrong with Columbia? :unsure:

Er, what isn't wrong with it?

Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 10:56:43 AM
As I pointed out in the other thread, it is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada)

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm (http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm)

According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.

Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make.   :hmm:

Perhaps, CC, you ought to contact Statistics Canada and tell them what being poor "really" means - it evidently has nothing to do with how much you earn per year, but must also take into account one's family circumstances; all those 20 and 30 year olds complaining about the fact that there are no jobs for college graduates are not really "poor" at all, because look - they are educated. Even if they are making minimum wage washing dishes, that doesn't count.  :)

Were you ever in a situation where there was no legitimate way for you to meet your basic needs?

I may be wrong, but the way I see it is that you still had your parents supporting you for basic needs, and your excess cash was spent on drugs.  That does not qualify as poor when you have money for extras.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 01:34:10 PMSame thing with being poor, there is obviously a statistical definition and in the United States at least it's based on income. If you fell below that level you could call yourself "poor" in that sense, but if you had access to untapped resources that easily could have dramatically enhanced your life then at best you were "living poor" you were never truly poor.

Which is why income is a bad way to define poor. You can have a high income and still make yourself poor through bad management of it. Or pull down a really small income while owning millions of dollars worth of assets. I would venture to guess that both of those conditions are too common to be called outliers too. Luckily, it is taken into account for some forms of government stuff, but basing a statistical analysis or some kind of policymaking on income alone is dangerous.

Ooooo! Poor stories....

I sold most of my 1st wargame collection to make a 400/mo house payment while eating bologna sandwiches as my main meal of the day. My car was a t-bird that only ran because my dad fixed it for me. And I did car repo because my friend took pity on me and made me a driver.

I miss my t-bird. And my copy of Battlefleet Mars.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 22, 2013, 03:31:25 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 01:34:10 PMSame thing with being poor, there is obviously a statistical definition and in the United States at least it's based on income. If you fell below that level you could call yourself "poor" in that sense, but if you had access to untapped resources that easily could have dramatically enhanced your life then at best you were "living poor" you were never truly poor.

Which is why income is a bad way to define poor. You can have a high income and still make yourself poor through bad management of it. Or pull down a really small income while owning millions of dollars worth of assets. I would venture to guess that both of those conditions are too common to be called outliers too. Luckily, it is taken into account for some forms of government stuff, but basing a statistical analysis or some kind of policymaking on income alone is dangerous.

I don't know why either of your examples would fall under the term poor. In the first, if the individual stopped being so profligate they'd be fine and in the 2nd if a person sold some of their assets they'd be fine.  Now granted, it isn't that simple as assets can be tied up and a person could have already spent too much - but still seems an odd label when there are still options.

I wouldn't sell my games. Not for money anyway.

If it makes Malthus feel better I'm sure he thinks he was poor.

But I think we all know the troof!

He was Jew poor.

Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2013, 04:14:26 PM
I wouldn't sell my games. Not for money anyway.

Just for farm animals.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 22, 2013, 03:31:25 PM
Which is why income is a bad way to define poor. You can have a high income and still make yourself poor through bad management of it. Or pull down a really small income while owning millions of dollars worth of assets. I would venture to guess that both of those conditions are too common to be called outliers too. Luckily, it is taken into account for some forms of government stuff, but basing a statistical analysis or some kind of policymaking on income alone is dangerous.

I disagree with both of these.  If you have high income, no matter how badly you manage it you will always have a nice paycheck next pay period.  And if you have millions of dollars worth of assets they are generating income.

Unless you are some kind of super-retard that owns 20 houses and just likes to look at them while you starve.

What about a person who owns 20 nicely painted 28 mm scale armies? Oh, and stares at them at starves.

Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2013, 04:21:51 PM
What about a person who owns 20 nicely painted 28 mm scale armies? Oh, and stares at them at starves.

Dedicated.

Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2013, 04:21:51 PM
What about a person who owns 20 nicely painted 28 mm scale armies? Oh, and stares at them at starves.

we call them the Brain.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
I sold most of my 1st wargame collection

I'd have had more respect for you if you were sucking cock.  :(

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 02:00:38 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 01:34:10 PM
I'm not particularly concerned with statistical definitions, while DGuller is horrible and I'd love to see him buried up to his neck in dirt and watch people hurl car batteries at him til he was dead

:hmm: That's not nice.  :mad:

I actually complimented you--I said you were right, that's the highest praise I give!

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2013, 02:22:23 PM
Why car batteries?  Not a natural choice.

Malthus has never claimed that if he were dying of starvation or on the verge of having his power cut off his parents wouldn't have helped him out.  I don't think that's a fair test of "poor."  If I understand him correctly, his parents made it clear they were not going to subsidize his living expenses.  So he was to all intents and purposes living the life of a poor person.  He earned little income and lived modestly.

I was joking about slumming.  I was joking because Malthus gave no indication that he had bountiful other employment opportunities that would have paid much more, but which he declined because he wanted to keep it real or whatever.  I got the sense that he got out of college with an anthropology degree, and he did the best he could, which was a shit job working at a pottery shop.

Just to test your thinking, do you believe Mitt and Ann Romney were poor when they were living in their first apartment?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 04:46:11 PM
Just to test your thinking, do you believe Mitt and Ann Romney were poor when they were living in their first apartment?

I don't know much about their situation except they ate off an ironing board.  But sure, if he was struggling to make ends meet as a magic underpants salesman i wouldn't have that much trouble calling him poor.

Well, my understanding is they got married and then Mitt enrolled at BYU. They moved into a basement apartment paying around $60/mo in rent, and used a pair of sawhorses with a door laid over them as a communal study desk and a ironing board as a dining table.

But you would consider them "poor" in that scenario even though Mitt had a father that had ran a major automaker and who was a millionaire? Anyway, after they finished at BYU Mitt moved to Belmont, MA and bought his first home with a $42,000 loan from his father--proving that money was always there whenever it was needed. I don't see that as a "poverty" situation.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Well, my understanding is they got married and then Mitt enrolled at BYU. They moved into a basement apartment paying around $60/mo in rent, and used a pair of sawhorses with a door laid over them as a communal study desk and a ironing board as a dining table.

But you would consider them "poor" in that scenario even though Mitt had a father that had ran a major automaker and who was a millionaire? Anyway, after they finished at BYU Mitt moved to Belmont, MA and bought his first home with a $42,000 loan from his father--proving that money was always there whenever it was needed. I don't see that as a "poverty" situation.

Indeed.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2013, 04:49:05 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 04:46:11 PM
Just to test your thinking, do you believe Mitt and Ann Romney were poor when they were living in their first apartment?

I don't know much about their situation except they ate off an ironing board.

They sold off stock whenever they needed cash during that time.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2013, 05:11:09 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2013, 04:49:05 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 04:46:11 PM
Just to test your thinking, do you believe Mitt and Ann Romney were poor when they were living in their first apartment?

I don't know much about their situation except they ate off an ironing board.

They sold off stock whenever they needed cash during that time.

They sold stock?

I never knew before that Mitt had had it so bad  :(

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Well, my understanding is they got married and then Mitt enrolled at BYU. They moved into a basement apartment paying around $60/mo in rent, and used a pair of sawhorses with a door laid over them as a communal study desk and a ironing board as a dining table.

But you would consider them "poor" in that scenario even though Mitt had a father that had ran a major automaker and who was a millionaire? Anyway, after they finished at BYU Mitt moved to Belmont, MA and bought his first home with a $42,000 loan from his father--proving that money was always there whenever it was needed. I don't see that as a "poverty" situation.

As i said about Malthus before, I think it depends on what Romney Sr.'s policy was.  If he said something like you're completely on your own and you'll never see a dime from me, then yeah, I think poor works.  I suppose you'll come back with the house loan, but that was a loan, not a gift.

Being poor while in college of course complicates things.  Presumably Mitt could have cranked up some more student debt and eaten off, say, a card table.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 04:45:41 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 02:00:38 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2013, 01:34:10 PM
I'm not particularly concerned with statistical definitions, while DGuller is horrible and I'd love to see him buried up to his neck in dirt and watch people hurl car batteries at him til he was dead

:hmm: That's not nice.  :mad:

I actually complimented you--I said you were right, that's the highest praise I give!

:hug:

Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 10:57:05 AM

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 07:16:15 AM
DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

I'm not trying to build an argumentum ad populum, the sizable majority agrees with me.

:lol:

Please tell me this is a joke.

Unbelievable, eh?  :lol:

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
Ooooo! Poor stories....

I sold most of my 1st wargame collection to make a 400/mo house payment while eating bologna sandwiches as my main meal of the day. My car was a t-bird that only ran because my dad fixed it for me. And I did car repo because my friend took pity on me and made me a driver.

I miss my t-bird. And my copy of Battlefleet Mars.

For a few nights, I slept in Korea's car in a Wal-Mart parking lot.

Of course, I could've gone home anytime I wanted and I even got my parents to put her up, too.  I was: MALTHUS POOR.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 21, 2013, 07:15:50 PM
Good God, no.  It's part of his self-made man story, to which liberals are unfortunately not immune, though at least it usually doesn't ordinarily serve as the foundational justification for higher-order douchiness with folks like Mal.

I'm a self-destroyed man.  Our lobby is huge, but largely ineffectual.  Because, well, you know, we destroyed ourselves.

Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2013, 04:21:51 PM
What about a person who owns 20 nicely painted 28 mm scale armies? Oh, and stares at them at starves.

Vain.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 22, 2013, 02:49:34 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Garbon was poor once.  He considered going to Columbia.

What's wrong with Columbia? :unsure:

That's the joke.  It's the slightly smaller castle to Stanford's big one. :)

Columbia is fine afaik.  Though as a matter of fact Columbia Law is a real dicey proposition in comparison to HYS' law schools, graduating huge numbers, gaming statistics by admitting a large transfer cohort for the Obamabucks, and providing pretty mediocre employment statistics for the fourth or fifth best law school in Amerika.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 22, 2013, 05:17:16 PM
They sold stock?

I never knew before that Mitt had had it so bad  :(

Yeah.  Roughing it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2013, 04:38:28 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
I sold most of my 1st wargame collection

I'd have had more respect for you if you were sucking cock.  :(

:lol:

Malthus considers himself to be poor because he got a job that didnt pay much after his undergraduate degree which he obtained for free. 

Lets compare that to people who had to pay for their undergraduate degree and so accumulated debt and then either had as bad a job or worse, no job at all.  Yeah, Malthus cry me a river.  You really really had it tough.

Plenty of poor people obtain degrees for free, as you should know Mr. Basketball Scholarship.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2013, 09:09:27 AM
Plenty of poor people obtain degrees for free, as you should know Mr. Basketball Scholarship.

There are a couple of differences.  First, my scholarships (both athletic and academic) were based on merit.  The kind of thing that people who do not get handed benefits based on birth have to earn.  Malthus on the other hand obtained a free education based on nothing more than an accident of birth.

Second, even after obtaining my scholarships I still had a significant debt load after I graduated from my undergraduate degree.  Since Malthus' father taught at the university he attended I assume it was close to his home and he had the option of living at home while attending university.

In the other thread I said it was comical that a person born into the kind of priviledged life Malthus had would try to claim he was poor.  Now I find it a bit offensive that he cant actually see the difference.

Ah, now we begin the phase wherein people compete to see how offended they can be because others don't agree with them!

*pops popcorn*

It's a matter of taste. I am certainly enjoying my current lifestyle, but compared to my parents I am quite poor. Compared to some people on Languish, I am quite poor. Compared to how I was doing a year or two ago, I am far wealthier than I was.

In comparison, while Malthus may not have been impoverished, he knew he wasn't earning and living up to his potential.

END of story. Thread closed.

*strut*

Quote from: Jaron on June 23, 2013, 12:14:48 PM
It's a matter of taste. I am certainly enjoying my current lifestyle, but compared to my parents I am quite poor. Compared to some people on Languish, I am quite poor. Compared to how I was doing a year or two ago, I am far wealthier than I was.

Yes, your post does sound like something a poor person would say.

Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2013, 11:32:14 AM
Ah, now we begin the phase wherein people compete to see how offended they can be because others don't agree with them!

*pops popcorn*

I am waiting for the phase when Grumbler contributes something worthwhile.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2013, 01:45:45 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2013, 11:32:14 AM
Ah, now we begin the phase wherein people compete to see how offended they can be because others don't agree with them!

*pops popcorn*

I am waiting for the phase when Grumbler contributes something worthwhile.

We can't all have his lifespan. :(

Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2013, 01:27:19 PM

Quote from: Jaron on June 23, 2013, 12:14:48 PM
It's a matter of taste. I am certainly enjoying my current lifestyle, but compared to my parents I am quite poor. Compared to some people on Languish, I am quite poor. Compared to how I was doing a year or two ago, I am far wealthier than I was.

Yes, your post does sound like something a poor person would say.

:mellow:

I think we can all agree poor people are terrible.

:D

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 23, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
I think we can all agree poor people are terrible.

Doesn't settle the issue. Many terrible people are not poor.

Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2013, 01:56:32 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2013, 01:45:45 PM
I am waiting for the phase when Grumbler contributes something worthwhile.

We can't all have his lifespan. :(

:D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2013, 02:07:56 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2013, 01:27:19 PM

Quote from: Jaron on June 23, 2013, 12:14:48 PM
It's a matter of taste. I am certainly enjoying my current lifestyle, but compared to my parents I am quite poor. Compared to some people on Languish, I am quite poor. Compared to how I was doing a year or two ago, I am far wealthier than I was.

Yes, your post does sound like something a poor person would say.

:mellow:

Those east coast blue bloods have no tolerance for the nouveau riche.  :(

I didn't know CC got a basketball scholarship. Cool. I know so little about you all. :D

Quote from: Josephus on June 23, 2013, 05:27:12 PM
I didn't know CC got a basketball scholarship. Cool. I know so little about you all. :D

What do you know about me?

Nothing. :(

Quote from: Josephus on June 23, 2013, 05:53:25 PM
Nothing. :(

there's many a sheep that wished they didn't know either :P

Quote from: Josephus on June 23, 2013, 05:53:25 PM
Nothing. :(

Good. Good.

The verdict is in:  Malthus, the jury of your peers concluded that you were never poor.  I'm sorry.  :(

Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2013, 03:17:49 PM
I may be wrong, but the way I see it is that you still had your parents supporting you for basic needs, and your excess cash was spent on drugs.  That does not qualify as poor when you have money for extras.

No. Parents did not support basic needs. They existed, and surely if I was in serious trouble they would have helped out.

If people who do drugs can't be poor by definition  ...  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2013, 10:57:05 AM

Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 07:16:15 AM
DG discovered that he didn't really understand what the term "poor" meant in a discussion with Malthus, and now is trying to build an argumentum ad populum that it is Malthus who doesn't understand the word poor.

I'm not trying to build an argumentum ad populum, the sizable majority agrees with me.

:lol:

Please tell me this is a joke.

Unbelievable, eh?  :lol:

It truly is a quote for the ages - I mean, assuming it wasn't intended to be funny. I'm still unsure about that.  :hmm:

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 08:36:45 AM
It truly is a quote for the ages - I mean, assuming it wasn't intended to be funny. I'm still unsure about that.  :hmm:

I'm sure it was. Guller is comedian.

Deadpan jokes are boring as fuck though.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2013, 10:09:10 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2013, 09:09:27 AM
Plenty of poor people obtain degrees for free, as you should know Mr. Basketball Scholarship.

There are a couple of differences.  First, my scholarships (both athletic and academic) were based on merit.  The kind of thing that people who do not get handed benefits based on birth have to earn.  Malthus on the other hand obtained a free education based on nothing more than an accident of birth.

Second, even after obtaining my scholarships I still had a significant debt load after I graduated from my undergraduate degree.  Since Malthus' father taught at the university he attended I assume it was close to his home and he had the option of living at home while attending university.

In the other thread I said it was comical that a person born into the kind of priviledged life Malthus had would try to claim he was poor.  Now I find it a bit offensive that he cant actually see the difference.

I've said many times in the other thread that I *don't* think our situations were the same. Dunno what else to say, really. If you are determined to work yourself up into a self-righteous froth, you will, no matter what I say.  :(

Why exactly is this all about comparing my situation with yours, anyway? What do you want, a prize? Yes, you clawed your way from a lower class family background and I did not. I've never said that I did.

My sole point is thatI have, for a few years, been poor - meaning I did not earn very much - on which I had to support myself. Just like millions of other people who have obtained worthless undergraduate degrees, and worked as dishwashers or whatever. It is hardly a unique situation. In hindsight, having worked my way through law school (which, unlike undergrad, I did have to pay for myself - and although heavily subsidized it was a lot more pricy that undergrad at the time), obtained a job, etc., it all looks like just an episode, but there was nothing inevitable about it - most of the people I knew from those days are now gen-u-inely poor, even by your standards, I think.  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 08:47:31 AM
I have...been poor

:thumbsup:

I believe Malthus is wealthy in life experience.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 09:00:20 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 08:47:31 AM
I have...been poor

:thumbsup:

Okay you win, I'll use your phrase from now on.   :lol: Mind you, can't imagine where else I would do so.  :hmm:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 09:01:54 AM
I believe Malthus is wealthy in life experience.

I believe wealth has experienced Malthus's life.    :P


On a more serious note, I'm not sure where this thread is going, at least in terms of beneficial outcomes.

I'm sure most of us have versions of our lives, that to an outside non-objective observer will sound somewhat constructed or at least not ring totally true, but that's the nature of living, there's a very real human tendency to shorthand or novelise life experiences to make them both more interesting and real to oneself. 

So no doubt there are large swaths of my life that wouldn't necessarily stand up to the forensic attention of lawyeresque techniques.
Can I swear my memory of what I got up to a quarter of a century ago is absolutely true and unvarnished, whimsyfied, no and I have just enough intelligence not to share it with the rest of you.  :P

I'm sure Malthus is pleased to know you support his efforts to bullshit his bio.  :lol:

Quote from: mongers on June 24, 2013, 09:13:08 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 09:01:54 AM
I believe Malthus is wealthy in life experience.

I believe wealth has experienced Malthus's life.    :P


On a more serious note, I'm not sure where this thread is going, at least in terms of beneficial outcomes.

I'm sure most of us have versions of our lives, that to an outside non-objective observer will sound somewhat constructed or at least not ring totally true, but that's the nature of living, there's a very real human tendency to shorthand or novelise life experiences to make them both more interesting and real to oneself. 

So no doubt there are large swaths of my life that wouldn't necessarily stand up to the forensic attention of lawyeresque techniques.
Can I swear my memory of what I got up to a quarter of a century ago is absolutely true and unvarnished, whimsyfied, no and I have just enough intelligence not to share it with the rest of you.  :P

I don't think the actual facts are in dispute here.  :hmm: All people are arguing about it the label.

The blood label.

Quote from: mongers on June 24, 2013, 09:13:08 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 09:01:54 AM
I believe Malthus is wealthy in life experience.

I believe wealth has experienced Malthus's life.    :P


On a more serious note, I'm not sure where this thread is going, at least in terms of beneficial outcomes.

I'm sure most of us have versions of our lives, that to an outside non-objective observer will sound somewhat constructed or at least not ring totally true, but that's the nature of living, there's a very real human tendency to shorthand or novelise life experiences to make them both more interesting and real to oneself. 

So no doubt there are large swaths of my life that wouldn't necessarily stand up to the forensic attention of lawyeresque techniques.
Can I swear my memory of what I got up to a quarter of a century ago is absolutely true and unvarnished, whimsyfied, no and I have just enough intelligence not to share it with the rest of you.  :P

Everything in my bio is true. -_-

What Languish needs now is a new member who has dragged himself up from the slums of Calcutta to the mighty heights of call centre operative. I would imagine that such a person would have short shrift for the claims of former or current poverty of any of us.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 09:52:43 AM
What Languish needs now is a new member who has dragged himself up from the slums of Calcutta to the mighty heights of call centre operative. I would imagine that such a person would have short shrift for the claims of former or current poverty of any of us.

Sure, by third-world standards this whole debate would be hilarious.  :D In Canada in particular, no-one is "really" poor.*

*Some exceptions for Native Canadians may apply.

Well there is a lot of poverty in Canada, not just with natives, but unlike in India, we do have social programs to help them out. Well we had really good social programs in the past, but now they're just passable.

Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2013, 07:26:36 AM
The verdict is in:  Malthus, the jury of your peers concluded that you were never poor.  I'm sorry.  :(

Better be careful, or a jury of your peers might make you a Canes fan.  :ph34r:

Quote from: Josephus on June 24, 2013, 10:05:58 AM
Well there is a lot of poverty in Canada, not just with natives, but unlike in India, we do have social programs to help them out. Well we had really good social programs in the past, but now they're just passable.

I'm sceptical about the extent of claimed poverty in first-world countries. In the UK it is claimed that there are millions, but the overwhelming majority of these people have homes, access to clean water, electricity and enough cheap food to make them fat.

Now these people do have my sympathy, apart from anything else it can be rather boring being broke and being excluded from the various activities most of us do without a thought. But it is simply not in the same league as living in a Nairobi shanty town or Calcutta slum.

First world poverty is defined in relative terms.  People should not confuse that concept of poverty with absolute poverty.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 24, 2013, 10:12:07 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2013, 07:26:36 AM
The verdict is in:  Malthus, the jury of your peers concluded that you were never poor.  I'm sorry.  :(

Better be careful, or a jury of your peers might make you a Canes fan.  :ph34r:

:yeahright: I have no peers here.  You people are beneath me.  ^_^

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
First world poverty is defined in relative terms.  People should not confuse that concept of poverty with absolute poverty.

Yup, it is generally defined as falling below some line of earned income. Where that line should be drawn leads to a lot of debate, generally about relative costs of living in various places and the like. Usually they take "family" income into account, which makes sense. 

What it doesn't include, is exclusions based on extended family circumstances. Your typical liberal-arts-degree-young-adult-dishwasher-from-middle class-family is still defined as "poor" if he or she falls below that line, in spite of the fact that causes CC and DG conniptions, and in spite of the fact he or she lives like unto a god compared with your average Calcutta scavenger.  ;)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
First world poverty is defined in relative terms.  People should not confuse that concept of poverty with absolute poverty.

Actually I was thinking, great, there are no poor people in America! Now that the war on poverty is over, we can focus on more important issues. ^_^

Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2013, 10:28:24 AM
:yeahright: I have no peers here.

This part you got right, filthy Slav. :mad:

If my dad pawned his wedding ring to buy groceries after stretching out what little food we had that week, were we poor? :unsure: I started working at 15 years old when I found out he did so. We never knew we were poor I guess. We were never homeless, never went hungry, just lived in a very restricted budget.

BTW, one of his favorite sayings translates to: The day that shit is worth gold, the poor will be born without an asshole.  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
First world poverty is defined in relative terms.  People should not confuse that concept of poverty with absolute poverty.

Yes, but the problem with relative poverty is where are the lines to be drawn?

In the UK it is defined as having a household income of less than 60% of the median household income. When incomes fell in the recession the rate of poverty also fell because so many benefit-dependent households crept above that 60% line. Interestingly my household counts as "in poverty" as the two houses, capital gains from my sharedealing, undistributed profits from my wife's business and cash savings are immaterial for the purposes of the definition  :hmm:

Which is why I voted "Yes" to the poll question. In a hopelessly subjective area he said he was poor for a few years. I believe him, if he felt he was poor then he was, who are we to quibble? After all, it drove him into training as a blood-sucking lawyer  :D

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 10:35:26 AM
What it doesn't include, is exclusions based on extended family circumstances. Your typical liberal-arts-degree-young-adult-dishwasher-from-middle class-family is still defined as "poor" if he or she falls below that line, in spite of the fact that causes CC and DG conniptions, and in spite of the fact he or she lives like unto a god compared with your average Calcutta scavenger.  ;)

Would you consider yourself typical?

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 10:35:49 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
First world poverty is defined in relative terms.  People should not confuse that concept of poverty with absolute poverty.

Actually I was thinking, great, there are no poor people in America! Now that the war on poverty is over, we can focus on more important issues. ^_^

Why, from these threads I have learned:

- You can't be poor if your parents aren't

- you can't be poor unless you have eaten nothing but ramen noodles for months (and were glad to get even them)

- you can't be poor if you use drugs, because drugs are a luxury and poor people can't afford luxuries

- you can't be poor unless you live in a crackhouse (presumely those crackheads aren't themselves poor - see point above)

It's all so complex, but the sum is that basically no-one, or very few, in North America are really poor. Yay! Problem solved. :D

There I was, thinking all that was necessary is to earn too little money ...

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:41:37 AM
Which is why I voted "Yes" to the poll question. In a hopelessly subjective area he said he was poor for a few years. I believe him, if he felt he was poor then he was, who are we to quibble? After all, it drove him into training as a blood-sucking lawyer  :D

I feel that I'm the Queen of the Night.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:41:37 AM
Yes, but the problem with relative poverty is where are the lines to be drawn?

I have long argued in favor of ditching relative definitions of poverty and using absolute definitions instead.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 10:42:12 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 10:35:26 AM
What it doesn't include, is exclusions based on extended family circumstances. Your typical liberal-arts-degree-young-adult-dishwasher-from-middle class-family is still defined as "poor" if he or she falls below that line, in spite of the fact that causes CC and DG conniptions, and in spite of the fact he or she lives like unto a god compared with your average Calcutta scavenger.  ;)

Would you consider yourself typical?

I was then, other than my oddball occupation of potter's assistant.

I'm not now, as my income is easily in the top percentile in Canada.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:41:37 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
First world poverty is defined in relative terms.  People should not confuse that concept of poverty with absolute poverty.

Yes, but the problem with relative poverty is where are the lines to be drawn?

In the UK it is defined as having a household income of less than 60% of the median household income. When incomes fell in the recession the rate of poverty also fell because so many benefit-dependent households crept above that 60% line. Interestingly my household counts as "in poverty" as the two houses, capital gains from my sharedealing, undistributed profits from my wife's business and cash savings are immaterial for the purposes of the definition  :hmm:

Which is why I voted "Yes" to the poll question. In a hopelessly subjective area he said he was poor for a few years. I believe him, if he felt he was poor then he was, who are we to quibble? After all, it drove him into training as a blood-sucking lawyer  :D

Hey, I resemble that remark.  ;)

I don't think, myself, that the issue is "hopelessly subjective", so much as it is difficult to define in a society that has a resonably socialist safety net. Obviously, the number of people *actually* starving to death, dead of exposure, etc. in Canadian society is very limited - usually the mentally ill or hopelessly addicted who more or less deliberately avoid social services - so in absolute terms, we don't have "poverty" like that (with the usual disclaimer about the native situation).

What we are left with is a term that is relative to be sure, but it is not wholly subjective, either - it acknowleges that there are folks earning less than would allow for what the people making the term would account as a decent life in our society, for purposes of establishing taxation, adjusting the social safety net, etc.

My point is that I've seen what that was like, or at least, what I myself believe to be an income too low to live a decent life - and my opinion is backed up with that of various policymakers whose job it is to make that determination, whose links I have posted above. I don't claim, and never have, to have grown up as poor as CC's family, or to have lived like Meri's family - let alone like a Calcutta scavenger.

That experience has, in turn, made me (I think) rather more liberal on those matters than I otherwise would be, in supporting stuff like higer taxation on people like I myself am now - higher income earners. As well as a determination to, well, earn money as a blood-sucking lawyer ...  ;)

Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2013, 01:56:32 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2013, 01:45:45 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2013, 11:32:14 AM
Ah, now we begin the phase wherein people compete to see how offended they can be because others don't agree with them!

*pops popcorn*

I am waiting for the phase when Grumbler contributes something worthwhile.

We can't all have his lifespan. :(

:lol:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:20:47 AM
I'm sceptical about the extent of claimed poverty in first-world countries. In the UK it is claimed that there are millions, but the overwhelming majority of these people have homes, access to clean water, electricity and enough cheap food to make them fat.

Now these people do have my sympathy, apart from anything else it can be rather boring being broke and being excluded from the various activities most of us do without a thought. But it is simply not in the same league as living in a Nairobi shanty town or Calcutta slum.

I can tell you that there were many days that my family went hungry. We didn't qualify for food stamps because my mother made too much money, by roughly $50/month. We had a house because my dad's cousin sold it to us for dirt cheap. Our mortgage was $120/month, iirc, but the electricty, water, and phone weren't a certainty. (We had to have a phone because my dad was very ill; otherwise, we would have done without.) On top of that, due to Dad's illness, most of my mother's paycheck went to pay his medical bills.

There's a reason that I lived with another family when I was very young. :sleep:

No, not Calcutta slum poverty, but I think you're mistaken in thinking that first-world poverty isn't painful. One must qualify for assistance, and if one doesn't quite qualify, then one suffers with minimal assistance at all from the government.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 10:45:43 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 10:42:12 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 10:35:26 AM
What it doesn't include, is exclusions based on extended family circumstances. Your typical liberal-arts-degree-young-adult-dishwasher-from-middle class-family is still defined as "poor" if he or she falls below that line, in spite of the fact that causes CC and DG conniptions, and in spite of the fact he or she lives like unto a god compared with your average Calcutta scavenger.  ;)

Would you consider yourself typical?

I was then, other than my oddball occupation of potter's assistant.

I'm not now, as my income is easily in the top percentile in Canada.

Malthus, a statistical anomaly put your income, for a brief period of your life, into the category of poor. Do you really believe that it is typical for someone to get a free undergraduate education?

Your argument that you briefly joined the ranks of the poor completely misses the point that you didnt have to pay a dime for your degree and that gave you the freedom to spend those few years doing whatever the hell you wanted.  In other words you were rich enough to play at being poor for a time.

Quote from: merithyn on June 24, 2013, 11:27:42 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:20:47 AM
I'm sceptical about the extent of claimed poverty in first-world countries. In the UK it is claimed that there are millions, but the overwhelming majority of these people have homes, access to clean water, electricity and enough cheap food to make them fat.

Now these people do have my sympathy, apart from anything else it can be rather boring being broke and being excluded from the various activities most of us do without a thought. But it is simply not in the same league as living in a Nairobi shanty town or Calcutta slum.

I can tell you that there were many days that my family went hungry. We didn't qualify for food stamps because my mother made too much money, by roughly $50/month. We had a house because my dad's cousin sold it to us for dirt cheap. Our mortgage was $120/month, iirc, but the electricty, water, and phone weren't a certainty. (We had to have a phone because my dad was very ill; otherwise, we would have done without.) On top of that, due to Dad's illness, most of my mother's paycheck went to pay his medical bills.

There's a reason that I lived with another family when I was very young. :sleep:

No, not Calcutta slum poverty, but I think you're mistaken in thinking that first-world poverty isn't painful. One must qualify for assistance, and if one doesn't quite qualify, then one suffers with minimal assistance at all from the government.

Point taken about the medical bills, something which we never have to worry about here so often forget in these discussions.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 12:06:48 PM
Point taken about the medical bills, something which we never have to worry about here so often forget in these discussions.

Even when living in a country with medical coverage being poor is no picnic.  Whether one lives in the First World or Third World I suspect a person feels the effects of hunger and homelessness in similar ways.

Its just that in a rich First World country there is more opportunity to recieve assistance from neighbours and the community who have the resources to help.  Which is what occurred in my family's case.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 10:45:43 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 10:42:12 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 10:35:26 AM
What it doesn't include, is exclusions based on extended family circumstances. Your typical liberal-arts-degree-young-adult-dishwasher-from-middle class-family is still defined as "poor" if he or she falls below that line, in spite of the fact that causes CC and DG conniptions, and in spite of the fact he or she lives like unto a god compared with your average Calcutta scavenger.  ;)

Would you consider yourself typical?

I was then, other than my oddball occupation of potter's assistant.

I'm not now, as my income is easily in the top percentile in Canada.

Malthus, a statistical anomaly put your income, for a brief period of your life, into the category of poor. Do you really believe that it is typical for someone to get a free undergraduate education?

Your argument that you briefly joined the ranks of the poor completely misses the point that you didnt have to pay a dime for your degree and that gave you the freedom to spend those few years doing whatever the hell you wanted.  In other words you were rich enough to play at being poor for a time.

The undergrad cost was a blip at the time - it was only around $1500 a year, because undergrad was (still is) pretty highly subsidized. I dunno why you are making such a deal about that. The significant fact was that, on graduating, I was unable to secure employment above the menial, because the degree, while fun, was worthless in terms of employability.

That's why, after seeing how things were going, I decided to go back to school and try over.

The situation would have been no different if I had a debt because of tuition - I still would have had no better employment. An absence of tuition debt doesn't make anyone "rich".

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 12:06:48 PM

Quote from: merithyn on June 24, 2013, 11:27:42 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:20:47 AM
I'm sceptical about the extent of claimed poverty in first-world countries. In the UK it is claimed that there are millions, but the overwhelming majority of these people have homes, access to clean water, electricity and enough cheap food to make them fat.

Now these people do have my sympathy, apart from anything else it can be rather boring being broke and being excluded from the various activities most of us do without a thought. But it is simply not in the same league as living in a Nairobi shanty town or Calcutta slum.

I can tell you that there were many days that my family went hungry. We didn't qualify for food stamps because my mother made too much money, by roughly $50/month. We had a house because my dad's cousin sold it to us for dirt cheap. Our mortgage was $120/month, iirc, but the electricty, water, and phone weren't a certainty. (We had to have a phone because my dad was very ill; otherwise, we would have done without.) On top of that, due to Dad's illness, most of my mother's paycheck went to pay his medical bills.

There's a reason that I lived with another family when I was very young. :sleep:

No, not Calcutta slum poverty, but I think you're mistaken in thinking that first-world poverty isn't painful. One must qualify for assistance, and if one doesn't quite qualify, then one suffers with minimal assistance at all from the government.

Point taken about the medical bills, something which we never have to worry about here so often forget in these discussions.

The US may well have "real poverty" in ways that the rest of the first world doesn't.

If any of you saw that jpeg, yeah I fucked up.  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 12:36:28 PM
The undergrad cost was a blip at the time - it was only around $1500 a year, because undergrad was (still is) pretty highly subsidized. I dunno why you are making such a deal about that. The significant fact was that, on graduating, I was unable to secure employment above the menial, because the degree, while fun, was worthless in terms of employability.

That's why, after seeing how things were going, I decided to go back to school and try over.

The situation would have been no different if I had a debt because of tuition - I still would have had no better employment. An absence of tuition debt doesn't make anyone "rich".

An absence of debt certainly provides more flexibility of choice in what you are willing to do.  If you had debt you may have tried harder to find a better paying job - even if that job was not anywhere near what you wanted.  You also would likely have worked more than one job as many students finishing their degrees with debt did and continue to do.

You also probably would have taken less time to make the decision you needed more training to find a better paying job to help pay off your debt.

Your priviledged position gave you an opportunity to live on less than you otherwise could have done.  True that does not make one rich.  But having come from a rich background gave you that opportunity.

Personally, I think the differences that I've observed between the "real poor" and the "well off youth experiencing an episode of being low income" comes down to a number of fairly ephemeral but nonetheless real qualities; many of them fairly neatly encapsulated in the concept of class.

I'm talking about things like approach to various risks in making life decision, money management skills, ways to social network, approach to education, and general confidence.

My experience is much closer to Malthus' in general trajectory. When I was 17 - in my last year of high school - I moved in with two of my friends from school. For my part, my step-father - a diplomat - got posted overseas again and took the family with him; I had some choices, but in the end I said "fuck it" and decided to stay and finish high school where I was. I got a few hundred bucks a month on the side from my mom (which was not enough to cover rent, much less live on), but otherwise was on my own.

At the same time, one of my roomies - and my best friend at the time - moved out from living with his (single, welfare collecting) mom in a half-way house for recovering drug-addicts where he'd lived for years.

We both had decent jobs for our situation - working part time as sales clerks at Eaton's. I got those jobs for us through the mother of a friend who happened to be an HR lady at the department store there, using my social network in a way that was perfectly natural (but inaccessible to my friend).

In terms of Canadian living standards, we were fairly poor - we lived in a shitty part of town and 10 kg bags of rice with soy sauce formed the staple of our diet. The difference was that for me (and the third room mate, who was rebelling against his somewhat strict military father), the dip in living standard was the result of us separating from our families, while for my other friend it was a continuation of what he'd always known growing up.

A year later, I applied for university in BC and went. I didn't have much of a plan - and less guidance than most middle class kids because my parents were not there - but is what you did, and I did it, and I went (after visiting my family in Europe over the summer, because while they weren't paying for me living on my own in high school of course they wanted to see me).

My buddy - very bright, and an effortless A student - did not apply to university at all; he had no relatives who'd gone to university, the cost seemed prohibitive - even as he stayed in town. He wanted to move to BC, but it took him a year to figure out a plan and save the money he felt he needed to to do so.

This kind of thing played out a number of times. I got into the gaming industry back when it was still desperate for people - I spent a year in a program and took on some student debt to do so. He was interested, but the idea of not working for that long and taking on debt was too risky for him.

The point is that our shared period of not-having-money - we weren't well off in Vancouver either - is that for him it represented the best anyone in his immediate family and family-social circle had done, and he had a good view (and close experience) of how far down you could go from there if you messed up; for me it represented a temporary lowering of life-style level as I figured out exactly how I'd get to the middle class life style I always subconsciously expected to live.

So yeah - like Malthus I have a experienced what it's like to live on a tiny budget for years, and in one way you can definitely call that  being poor. But I agree with CC and Merithyn that it's very different from growing up poor; carrying with you the skills, attitudes, assumptions, and benefits you get from coming from a family of academics, civil servants, and generally comfortably middle class people puts you in a very different place from someone who grew up in poverty even if you are sharing the same standard of living at a particular point in time.

Yeah, I think that puts it nicely Jacob.  To go to university at all was, at the time, a big risk.  My father was dead set against it because of the cost and I had to give up my job (a low wage but still working).  No one in my family had gone to university before me.

Ultimately the main reason I finally went was because of basketball and my coach convinced my dad it would be a good idea.  Still, at the time,  it seemed like a huge crap shoot.  If it had not been for basketball there is no way I would have gone.  I would have continued on in my job because it was the most secure thing going.  When one is poor it is difficult to take risks.

The point I am having trouble articulating to Malthus is that the only "risk" he took was having the kind of poor employment prospects after undergrad which I had to live with all my life before I went to University.  Once in university I saw a whole new world of opportunity open up.  Something that Malthus and kids of his "class" knew all their lives.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 08:33:56 AMNo. Parents did not support basic needs. They existed, and surely if I was in serious trouble they would have helped out.

Someone with a get out of jail free card / life jacket isn't really poor, sorry. I'm sure part of your self-narrative is enriched by convincing yourself you were poor once. You never were. Thread over.

I would frame your wilderness years as a "poor use of your time and abilities", but not a period when you were poor. They are a teachable moment to your children that you need to plan your career when you pick a degree, but not really anything about being poor.

CC and Biscuit: did either of you test the job market after receiving your bachelors'?  I suspect not.  In Biscuit's case, obviously not.

I think Malthus sampled all the more enjoyable touchstones of life without delaying too long at any one of them and always kept moving on at the right time.

So far.  :ph34r:

Life's a marathon, not a sprint, he can still eat himself into a plethora of Western diseases, sit still long enough for it to kill him and otherwise fail to keep active and on the ball. As do we all, mind you. :contract:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 01:52:39 PM
CC and Biscuit: did either of you test the job market after receiving your bachelors'?  I suspect not.  In Biscuit's case, obviously not.

Yes, between undergrad and lawschool I took a year off.  In that year I worked two jobs - at the same time.  I worked from 4 am to 8 am at the airport sorting incoming and outgoing materials for Loomis.  From 9-5 I worked I worked a security job.  The Loomis job was unionized which paid the equivalent of minimum wage for a full time job.  The security job was minimum wage.  Sometimes I was able to pull a few more hours at Loomis after the security job.

After the jobs I had done through highschool and this, whenever I heard people complain about how hard law school was I just had to laugh.  Kind of like when I hear how hard Malthus thinks he had it.

Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2013, 01:34:51 PM

So yeah - like Malthus I have a experienced what it's like to live on a tiny budget for years, and in one way you can definitely call that  being poor. But I agree with CC and Merithyn that it's very different from growing up poor; carrying with you the skills, attitudes, assumptions, and benefits you get from coming from a family of academics, civil servants, and generally comfortably middle class people puts you in a very different place from someone who grew up in poverty even if you are sharing the same standard of living at a particular point in time.

This "argument" is all on CC's side, though. I'm not disagreeing with him, or Meth, that their experience was different. Clearly there is a vast difference between growing up poor and not growing up poor.

It is them trying, for some reason unknown to me, to argue I'm wrong when I said that, after university, I was poor.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:05:34 PM
After the jobs I had done through highschool and this, whenever I heard people complain about how hard law school was I just had to laugh.  Kind of like when I hear how hard Malthus thinks he had it.

Please point out where I was complaining about having it hard.

Oh, you can't? You just made that shit up? Deary me.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:09:21 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:05:34 PM
After the jobs I had done through highschool and this, whenever I heard people complain about how hard law school was I just had to laugh.  Kind of like when I hear how hard Malthus thinks he had it.

Please point out where I was complaining about having it hard.

Oh, you can't? You just made that shit up? Deary me.

Claiming that one was poor when they were not is making shit up.  Or at the very least a sign that one suffers from a misunderstand of what it is to be poor beyond some statistical analysis made, as Yi correctly points out, on the basis of questionable assumptions.

If you still dont get the point I am not sure what else I can say.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 01:52:39 PM
CC and Biscuit: did either of you test the job market after receiving your bachelors'?  I suspect not.  In Biscuit's case, obviously not.

Wouldn't have been strictly legal for six years without some shenanigans (constituting fraud.)

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:08:25 PMThis "argument" is all on CC's side, though. I'm not disagreeing with him, or Meth, that their experience was different. Clearly there is a vast difference between growing up poor and not growing up poor.

It is them trying, for some reason unknown to me, to argue I'm wrong when I said that, after university, I was poor.

I view (and I think CC does too) low income being distinct from poverty. Real poverty is primarily perpetuated by having no safety net, poor guidance from parents (who themselves lacked opportunities in life and don't understand the available opportunities), poor access to prestigious schools, and none of that really applies to a kid raised in the middle/upper middle class who works a few unproductive years after undergrad making flower pots.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 24, 2013, 02:16:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:08:25 PMThis "argument" is all on CC's side, though. I'm not disagreeing with him, or Meth, that their experience was different. Clearly there is a vast difference between growing up poor and not growing up poor.

It is them trying, for some reason unknown to me, to argue I'm wrong when I said that, after university, I was poor.

I view (and I think CC does too) low income being distinct from poverty. Real poverty is primarily perpetuated by having no safety net, poor guidance from parents (who themselves lacked opportunities in life and don't understand the available opportunities), poor access to prestigious schools, and none of that really applies to a kid raised in the middle/upper middle class who works a few unproductive years after undergrad making flower pots.

You put it better than I did.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:12:33 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:09:21 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:05:34 PM
After the jobs I had done through highschool and this, whenever I heard people complain about how hard law school was I just had to laugh.  Kind of like when I hear how hard Malthus thinks he had it.

Please point out where I was complaining about having it hard.

Oh, you can't? You just made that shit up? Deary me.

Claiming that one was poor when they were not is making shit up.  Or at the very least a sign that one suffers from a misunderstand of what it is to be poor beyond some statistical analysis made, as Yi correctly points out, on the basis of questionable assumptions.

If you still dont get the point I am not sure what else I can say.

He's right though that you picked an odd tack when you mentioned that he was complaining about how hard he had it. I don't recall Malthus ever doing that.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
He's right though that you picked an odd tack when you mentioned that he was complaining about how hard he had it. I don't recall Malthus ever doing that.

CC's point seems to be that Malthus never earned the right to use the word poor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
He's right though that you picked an odd tack when you mentioned that he was complaining about how hard he had it. I don't recall Malthus ever doing that.

CC's point seems to be that Malthus never earned the right to use the word poor.

:yes:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
He's right though that you picked an odd tack when you mentioned that he was complaining about how hard he had it. I don't recall Malthus ever doing that.

CC's point seems to be that Malthus never earned the right to use the word poor.

More or less.  This all started when Malthus claimed to have been poor in the other thread.  I pointed out that the advantages of his birth meant the opposite.  Indeed if Malthus was poor we certainly have a challenge figuring out a meaningful definition for the word.

I have formally started the process to demote DG back to stinking commie. The charge is formenting class warfare.

How much was minimum wage at the time you were schlepping clay Malthus?

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2013, 02:23:24 PM
I have formally started the process to demote DG back to stinking commie. The charge is formenting class warfare.

Its funny how the protaganists in this discussion have been Malthus and I and yet DG has taken all the heat for Malthus was a rich kid camp.  :D

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:12:33 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:09:21 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:05:34 PM
After the jobs I had done through highschool and this, whenever I heard people complain about how hard law school was I just had to laugh.  Kind of like when I hear how hard Malthus thinks he had it.

Please point out where I was complaining about having it hard.

Oh, you can't? You just made that shit up? Deary me.

Claiming that one was poor when they were not is making shit up.  Or at the very least a sign that one suffers from a misunderstand of what it is to be poor beyond some statistical analysis made, as Yi correctly points out, on the basis of questionable assumptions.

If you still dont get the point I am not sure what else I can say.

Dude.

Look back at the thread which started you off. If was *you* who characterized *me* as going from being poor to well-off.

I then *corrected you* to point out that I had advantages you did not - namely, my dad was a prof and my tuition was free.

You then proceeded to freak out at me, for no good reason I can see, claiming that I had never experienced being "really" poor. I never for a moment claimed that my situation was the same as yours (indeed, as I said, it was me correcting you on that very point that started off your tirade) . I never, for a second, complained that I personally had it hard at all! In fact, I didn't; it wasn't hardship that made me want to go back to school etc., it was fear of the future - that living this way is OK in your 20s but would highly suck in one's 40s.

The only way I can explain your strange anger and vindictiveness in your posts is that you are inventing a wholly fictional scenario in your mind whereby I am, I dunno, denying you status of self-made man or something. It's not a status I am claiming. I know very well that I owe a lot to the fact my family is educated etc. 

I am simply saying that my income sucked and my living arrangements sucked when I graduated without a useful degree - e.g., because I happened to be poor at the time.  Why this is at all "controversial" beggars belief. It is a situation literally millions of folks find themselves in after graduation.  :rolleyes:

Does a university department chair make enough in Canada for his offspring to be considered "rich kids?"

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
He's right though that you picked an odd tack when you mentioned that he was complaining about how hard he had it. I don't recall Malthus ever doing that.

CC's point seems to be that Malthus never earned the right to use the word poor.

Yeah and I get that. However, it is a mistake then to say that Malthus was crying about how hard he had it.

I don't get why you are all fighting about a label.  Malthus said he was "poor", but then gave a detailed explanation of his circumstances (which no one is questioning).  He acknowledged that his situation, of poverty for a year after graduation, was quite different than someone who "grew up poor".

Alternatively, I'm not quite sure why "growing up poor" is some huge badge of honour that needs to be protected against.  Does "growing up poor" make you a better, more moral, person?

My story is much more like Malthus' than it is CCs.  I am the son of a newspaper reporter and a teacher.  My parents didn't pay my tuition, but they did give me free room and board living at home while I went to school.  My father also lined me up with a job at the newspaper that helped pay my expenses.  Both of those are obviously huge advantages someone who grew up in real poverty would never have.

I didn't take a year off - but I did take a co-op degree which added a year to my education.  My first job was interesting enough - I worked for a nuclear research company.  But of course everyone I worked with had PhDs - it was not going to be much of a career path for me.

My other, and longer, job was with a mining/smelting company.  I counted rocks.  Honestly.  I would prepare samples of ore concentrate then count the mineral grains under a microscope to determine their composition.  It was tedious in the extreme.  It was also fairly low paid, though not poverty.  And it had no opportunity to advance.  It was this job that convinced me to sign up for the LSAT.

So, I was never poor (though I do remember one time with the mining company miscalculating some bills, and realizing I had no money and no food, with a payday not coming for a week.  Thankfully I borrowed $20 from a co-worker so I could afford KD to last me to the next payday).   But so what?  I still learned the value of hard work, and that I wanted a better income and opportunity for myself.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:28:11 PM
I am simply saying that my income sucked and my living arrangements sucked when I graduated without a useful degree - e.g., because I happened to be poor at the time.  Why this is at all "controversial" beggars belief. It is a situation literally millions of folks find themselves in after graduation.  :rolleyes:

What beggars belief is that after all the posts after I pointed out to you that you circumstances hardly qualified as being poor, you still want to hang on to that label with such vigor.

As I said, if you cant tell the difference between what you went through and what being poor really means then enough said.

Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 02:30:53 PM
Does "growing up poor" make you a better, more moral, person?

According to MiM, yes.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:23:06 PM
More or less.  This all started when Malthus claimed to have been poor in the other thread.  I pointed out that the advantages of his birth meant the opposite.  Indeed if Malthus was poor we certainly have a challenge figuring out a meaningful definition for the word.

Wrong. You claimed I was poor. I then pointed out that we were not poor in the same way, that I had advantages you did not have.

Go back and read the thread.

Posted by CC:

QuoteExcept that both Malthus and I have gone from being poor to being fairly well off.

Posted by Malthus:

QuoteIndeed, I did one better than most people - my undergraduate education was entirely free to me, thanks to a very useful perk my dad got by being a prof at the same university I went to. 

Posted by CC:

QuoteBtw having a university prof as a dad means you were not poor.

Poted by Malthus:

QuoteEvidently you do not know my dad. 

But yeah, I certainly came from a family with advantages - everyone in it was highly educated. That did not stop me, personally, from lacking any money as a young dude, particularly when attempting to live on the wages of a potter's assistant.   :D

In light of this exchange, I think your position is, franctly, delusional. Look who it is saying from the very beginning that I have advantages, etc.

If you go back further in the thread you will see that I called you poor because you had claimed the same just before my post.  I had a bit of a brain cramp on that one because I had forgotten the family you were raised in.  You then set me straight and said you had a father who was a professor to which I said then you were not poor and for some reason unkown to me you seem to want to cling to the view that you had in fact been poor for an ever so brief span of your life.

If you want delusional you might look in the mirror.

Tell me this.  What is it about the being poor narrative that is so important for you Malthus?

Malthus, give it up dude.  Once the people of Languish decide something about you, that's it.  THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  That's why I work in HR and eat out of dumpsters to these people, and will forever do so.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:33:44 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:28:11 PM
I am simply saying that my income sucked and my living arrangements sucked when I graduated without a useful degree - e.g., because I happened to be poor at the time.  Why this is at all "controversial" beggars belief. It is a situation literally millions of folks find themselves in after graduation.  :rolleyes:

What beggars belief is that after all the posts after I pointed out to you that you circumstances hardly qualified as being poor, you still want to hang on to that label with such vigor.

As I said, if you cant tell the difference between what you went through and what being poor really means then enough said.

I am arguing because you guys are arguing with me. I've explained exactly what I meant. I earned less than the poverty line and so, by the actual definition of the term used in Canada, I was "poor". I was not from a poor family so I was not "poor" in that sense. I've said from the very beginning that I can see the difference, that I had advantages you did not, but it is like you simply can't read it, or don't believe it.  See my post above in which I document the exchange.

Really, the only reason I care to argue is that, according to you, I was being "misleading" and "crying" about "how tough I had it" - none of which is true. It is you who has some inexplicable hang-up about it.

Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 02:39:54 PM
Malthus, give it up dude.  Once the people of Languish decide something about you, that's it.  THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  That's why I work in HR and eat out of dumpsters to these people, and will forever do so.

You can change Cal.  You have the power to raise yourself up to eat at gas stations.

Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 02:39:54 PM
Malthus, give it up dude.  Once the people of Languish decide something about you, that's it.  THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  That's why I work in HR and eat out of dumpsters to these people, and will forever do so.

Gas station food-like substances too snobby for you?  ;)

I don't think anybody disagrees that Malthus's experience was different from CC's or Meri's, but I don't think English supports a clear distinction between them without getting into wordy clarifications or outright twisting of the meaning of "poor".

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
I don't think anybody disagrees that Malthus's experience was different from CC's or Meri's, but I don't think English supports a clear distinction between them without getting into wordy clarifications or outright twisting of the meaning of "poor".

Well, MW has this as a description of poverty:

Quotethe state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

and Malthus has argued that his period after college is what typically happens after college, when kids have to suddenly support themselves.  So I don't think it would involve wordy clarifications or word-twisting if one wanted to say that Malthus had a usual amount of money for someone fresh out of college (particularly one not motivated to better himself).

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:39:11 PM
If you go back further in the thread you will see that I called you poor because you had claimed the same just before my post.  I had a bit of a brain cramp on that one because I had forgotten the family you were raised in.  You then set me straight and said you had a father who was a professor to which I said then you were not poor and for some reason unkown to me you seem to want to cling to the view that you had in fact been poor for an ever so brief span of your life.

If you want delusional you might look in the mirror.

Tell me this.  What is it about the being poor narrative that is so important for you Malthus?

Nothing.

Not being thought on this board a misleading crybaby who cried about how tough I had it and lied about my situation, which seems to be where you are comming from, has a certain amount of importance to me.

Indeed, in the other thread I said that if anyone could think of a better one-word label for "I had a shitty job and lived in a shitty place because I earned shit money after graduating with a degree that did not, alas, open job doors for me after university", rather than "I was poor after university", I'd happily use it, just to keep the peace.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
I don't think anybody disagrees that Malthus's experience was different from CC's or Meri's, but I don't think English supports a clear distinction between them without getting into wordy clarifications or outright twisting of the meaning of "poor".

Yup. That's my point exactly.

You guys should just get a room to gay it out.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:48:01 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
I don't think anybody disagrees that Malthus's experience was different from CC's or Meri's, but I don't think English supports a clear distinction between them without getting into wordy clarifications or outright twisting of the meaning of "poor".

Well, MW has this as a description of poverty:

Quotethe state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

and Malthus has argued that his period after college is what typically happens after college, when kids have to suddenly support themselves.  So I don't think it would involve wordy clarifications or word-twisting if one wanted to say that Malthus had a usual amount of money for someone fresh out of college (particularly one not motivated to better himself).

The claim is that it is usual for college kids with worthless degrees in the humanities to be poor, so it isn't really "poor"? Presumably, by the same token, it is usual for non-English speaking illegal immigrants to be "poor" so they aren't "poor" either?  :hmm:

Dunno where you are getting the bolded  stuff from.  :hmm:

Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 02:50:45 PM
You guys should just get a room to gay it out.

I refuse to "gay it out" with a guy who is eight feet tall.  :P

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:53:02 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:48:01 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
I don't think anybody disagrees that Malthus's experience was different from CC's or Meri's, but I don't think English supports a clear distinction between them without getting into wordy clarifications or outright twisting of the meaning of "poor".

Well, MW has this as a description of poverty:

Quotethe state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

and Malthus has argued that his period after college is what typically happens after college, when kids have to suddenly support themselves.  So I don't think it would involve wordy clarifications or word-twisting if one wanted to say that Malthus had a usual amount of money for someone fresh out of college (particularly one not motivated to better himself).

The claim is that it is usual for college kids with worthless degrees in the humanities to be poor, so it isn't really "poor"? Presumably, by the same token, it is usual for non-English speaking illegal immigrants to be "poor" so they aren't "poor" either?  :hmm:

Nope.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 02:53:02 PM
Dunno where you are getting the bolded  stuff from.  :hmm:

From you. By all accounts you were a jack off for a few years. Nothing wrong with that. :)

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:20:47 AM

Now these people do have my sympathy, apart from anything else it can be rather boring being broke and being excluded from the various activities most of us do without a thought. But it is simply not in the same league as living in a Nairobi shanty town or Calcutta slum.

Agreed. For the most part first world poverty differs than 3rd world. but that's mostly due to social programs such as welfare, subsidized housing, shelters, etc, which current centre-right governments keep chipping away at each budget.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:55:02 PM
Nope.

Please explain.

QuoteFrom you. By all accounts you were a jack off for a few years. Nothing wrong with that. :)

How so? I worked. I even tried to start my own business.  :hmm:

Quote from: Josephus on June 24, 2013, 02:55:16 PM
Agreed. For the most part first world poverty differs than 3rd world. but that's mostly due to social programs such as welfare, subsidized housing, shelters, etc, which current centre-right governments keep chipping away at each budget.

It's mostly due to the fact that to be considered poor in the 3rd world you have to earn less than $1.25 a day.

As though being labelled poor is somehow an achievement or virtuous. It's not. :contract:

Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 02:39:54 PM
Malthus, give it up dude.  Once the people of Languish decide something about you, that's it.  THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  That's why I work in HR and eat out of dumpsters to these people, and will forever do so.

You don't?  :yeahright: Anyway, this is Malthus's alt history thread, have someone start your own.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:48:01 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
I don't think anybody disagrees that Malthus's experience was different from CC's or Meri's, but I don't think English supports a clear distinction between them without getting into wordy clarifications or outright twisting of the meaning of "poor".

Well, MW has this as a description of poverty:

Quotethe state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

and Malthus has argued that his period after college is what typically happens after college, when kids have to suddenly support themselves.  So I don't think it would involve wordy clarifications or word-twisting if one wanted to say that Malthus had a usual amount of money for someone fresh out of college (particularly one not motivated to better himself).

No, the opposite conclusion is more compelling.  As I argued in this and the other thread, and as you point out here.  Most kids find themselves in the Malthus' position.  Although Malthus position was still advantaged because of the lack of debt.  Therefore his circumstances were in no way lacking the "usual" amount of money in his circumstances.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2013, 03:04:45 PM
As though being labelled poor is somehow an achievement or virtuous. It's not. :contract:

Well matched with sig.  :D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 02:29:15 PM
Does a university department chair make enough in Canada for his offspring to be considered "rich kids?"

From the POV of the poor, yes.

From the POV of the middle class, no.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2013, 03:04:45 PM
As though being labelled poor is somehow an achievement or virtuous. It's not. :contract:

It does however grant you bonus points in the game of life achievement.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2013, 03:04:45 PM
As though being labelled poor is somehow an achievement or virtuous. It's not. :contract:

I dont think anyone here is arguing that being poor is in any way a good thing.  Other than your earlier post. :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 03:09:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 02:48:01 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
I don't think anybody disagrees that Malthus's experience was different from CC's or Meri's, but I don't think English supports a clear distinction between them without getting into wordy clarifications or outright twisting of the meaning of "poor".

Well, MW has this as a description of poverty:

Quotethe state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

and Malthus has argued that his period after college is what typically happens after college, when kids have to suddenly support themselves.  So I don't think it would involve wordy clarifications or word-twisting if one wanted to say that Malthus had a usual amount of money for someone fresh out of college (particularly one not motivated to better himself).

No, the opposite conclusion is more compelling.  As I argued in this and the other thread, and as you point out here.  Most kids find themselves in the Malthus' position.  Although Malthus position was still advantaged because of the lack of debt.  Therefore his circumstances were in no way lacking the "usual" amount of money in his circumstances.

I don't know that "most kids find themselves in that situation".

When I think back to most of my university-era friends they were generally able to all find modest but above-minimum wage jobs upon graduation.

Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 03:16:25 PM
When I think back to most of my university-era friends they were generally able to all find modest but above-minimum wage jobs upon graduation.

I am very happy that you associated yourself with a group of people that bucked the trend.  Although you also recently posted that your friends who took teaching degrees were not as fortunate.

Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 02:30:53 PM
Alternatively, I'm not quite sure why "growing up poor" is some huge badge of honour that needs to be protected against.  Does "growing up poor" make you a better, more moral, person?

No, but it means you have a better idea of what it's like to grow up poor than someone who had a few years after graduating university.

Sort of like if someone stayed in an RV near Tofino for a weekend they can't speak with too much authority about what it's like surviving in the great Northern wilds of Canada.

That said, Malthus has not in anyway misrepresented his experience. The only real issue is what is meant by the word poor.

I am sympathetic to argument that Malthus' definition of being poor is a poor (heh) reflection of the realities of poverty. In addition to basically rendering rhetorically invisible grimness of what Meri, Otto, and CC define as being poor (and which is a reality in both Canada and the US) it also minimizes the heroic achievements of those like CC (and Otto?) who lifted themselves into the ranks of the upper middle class from actual poverty. Neither you, I, nor Malthus have done that but if we claim that getting our shit together after a few years of lean living around university constitutes lifting ourselves out of poverty then we're claiming the same personal narrative (to use Otto's phrase) as CC (and Otto?) when what we did is the statistical norm given our social circumstances, while what they did is the statistical outlier.

Biscuit is a general's son.  He was born with a golden braid in his mouth.

Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2013, 03:08:46 PM
Anyway, this is Malthus's alt history thread

:D

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 03:20:21 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 03:16:25 PM
When I think back to most of my university-era friends they were generally able to all find modest but above-minimum wage jobs upon graduation.

I am very happy that you associated yourself with a group of people that bucked the trend.  Although you also recently posted that your friends who took teaching degrees were not as fortunate.

They were stuck in the substitute teaching rut for a few years.  The instability sucks, but they could put a roof over their head.

Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2013, 03:25:11 PM
That said, Malthus has not in anyway misrepresented his experience. The only real issue is what is meant by the word poor.

I am sympathetic to argument that Malthus' definition of being poor is a poor (heh) reflection of the realities of poverty. In addition to basically rendering rhetorically invisible grimness of what Meri, Otto, and CC define as being poor (and which is a reality in both Canada and the US) it also minimizes the heroic achievements of those like CC (and Otto?) who lifted themselves into the ranks of the upper middle class from actual poverty. Neither you, I, nor Malthus have done that but if we claim that getting our shit together after a few years of lean living around university constitutes lifting ourselves out of poverty then we're claiming the same personal narrative (to use Otto's phrase) as CC (and Otto?) when what we did is the statistical norm given our social circumstances, while what they did is the statistical outlier.

This, though, is bullshit.

I never claimed that my experience was the same as those who grew up poor. In fact, if you read the thread, you would see that I consistently said the opposite - that a few years' stint of being (without money? Money disadvantaged? What exactly would you have me say here?) is not the equivalent of growing up poor. This whole fracas was started because I corrected CC on this very point - and myself said that I had advantages he lacked.   

I love how on Languish you can say one thing over and over again, but people will *still* claim you have said the exact opposite: "basically rendering rhetorically invisible" is right - what I actually said is being "rendered rhetorically invisible" here. His claim to heroism is quite safe from any alleged assault by me.  :rolleyes:

I'm kind of on Malthus' side in all this, he has never pulled the "I was poor" thing.........his statements have been realistic.........not pursuing an artistic bent because he likes middle-class comforts and so on.........

OTOH I do think we are at the birth of a meme............there is "poor" and there is "Malthus poor"  :D

Poor : "holiday? what is a holiday?"

Malthus poor : "I'm going to Hawaii for my holidays, but I'm flying economy class  :( "

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 04:18:52 PM
I'm kind of on Malthus' side in all this, he has never pulled the "I was poor" thing.........his statements have been realistic.........not pursuing an artistic bent because he likes middle-class comforts and so on.........

OTOH I do think we are at the birth of a meme............there is "poor" and there is "Malthus poor"  :D

Poor : "holiday? what is a holiday?"

Malthus poor : "I'm going to Hawaii for my holidays, but I'm flying economy class  :( "

It will go well with the $2000 stroller meme. Which is also something I never had, but got stuck to me because I was laughing at the fact someone I knew had one.

Well when you were laughing at them for getting something so cheap...

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 04:17:45 PMThis, though, is bullshit.

I never claimed that my experience was the same as those who grew up poor. In fact, if you read the thread, you would see that I consistently said the opposite - that a few years' stint of being (without money? Money disadvantaged? What exactly would you have me say here?) is not the equivalent of growing up poor. This whole fracas was started because I corrected CC on this very point - and myself said that I had advantages he lacked.   

I love how on Languish you can say one thing over and over again, but people will *still* claim you have said the exact opposite: "basically rendering rhetorically invisible" is right - what I actually said is being "rendered rhetorically invisible" here. His claim to heroism is quite safe from any alleged assault by me.  :rolleyes:

Isn't this whole thread a discussion about whether by saying "poor" you are (CC's view) or are not (your view) making those claims?

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 04:20:14 PMIt will go well with the $2000 stroller meme. Which is also something I never had, but got stuck to me because I was laughing at the fact someone I knew had one.

I recently learned than you can get a hand-crafted Aston Martin branded stroller, limited to 800 world wide. If your acquaintance has another child, maybe they should look into that?

http://www.silvercrossbaby.com/aston-martin/

I thought Malthus was raised by insects or something.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 04:20:14 PM
It will go well with the $2000 stroller meme. Which is also something I never had, but got stuck to me because I was laughing at the fact someone I knew had one.

We are well aware you did not actually have the stroller Malthus.

I am somewhat puzzled by the idea that being poor is a credential only gained once you have met a series of requirements.  Maybe Fiddler on the Roof was wrong about being poor not being a great honor.

I thought it was Malthus' stroller.

I knew it wasn't.

Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2013, 04:41:34 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 04:17:45 PMThis, though, is bullshit.

I never claimed that my experience was the same as those who grew up poor. In fact, if you read the thread, you would see that I consistently said the opposite - that a few years' stint of being (without money? Money disadvantaged? What exactly would you have me say here?) is not the equivalent of growing up poor. This whole fracas was started because I corrected CC on this very point - and myself said that I had advantages he lacked.   

I love how on Languish you can say one thing over and over again, but people will *still* claim you have said the exact opposite: "basically rendering rhetorically invisible" is right - what I actually said is being "rendered rhetorically invisible" here. His claim to heroism is quite safe from any alleged assault by me.  :rolleyes:

Isn't this whole thread a discussion about whether by saying "poor" you are (CC's view) or are not (your view) making those claims?

No, the whole discussion was about whether I was wrong to have claimed I was "poor" for a few years after getting out of university, simply because I was earning very little money as a potter's assistant.

I never made any of those claims for "heroism" or whatever. In fact, I very specifically told CC I was *not* making those claims in the very first exchange. In fact, far from complaining about how I had it tough, I went further, and told him I had in fact had benefits available to few, such as free tuition as a "perk" of my dad's job as a prof.

That's why this whole discussion is highly annoying. CC's framed the debate based on a complete and utter fabrication and you are buying into it.

Again it is like the stroller meme. Some people knew it wasn't my stroller and others did not, simply because the meme got repeated enough times. If CC etc. repeat enough times that I was complaining about how hard I had it, people like you will believe it.

As Winston Churchill said, ""A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." He may have been imagining Languish.  :D

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 05:00:43 PM
We are well aware you did not actually have the stroller Malthus.

Apparently, not everyone was.

Quote
I am somewhat puzzled by the idea that being poor is a credential only gained once you have met a series of requirements.  Maybe Fiddler on the Roof was wrong about being poor not being a great honor.

That makes two of us.

Apparently, merely mentioning the word and you are "rhetorically" denying the dignity of poverty. Or something.

For the record I thought Malthus had an expensive stroller, but that the $2,000 stroller was a hyperbolic exaggeration.

Okay, but what about the insects?

Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2013, 05:49:09 PM
Okay, but what about the insects?

That is a different alt life best saved for another thread.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 05:41:19 PM
That's why this whole discussion is highly annoying. CC's framed the debate based on a complete and utter fabrication and you are buying into it.

One last time then I am done with this thread.  You claimed to be poor.  I at first accepted that notion until you said you father was a professor.  I then said that you were not poor with a father like that.

You insist that you were poor because you had a few years between undergrad and law school where you earned, in your estimation, a small amount of money.  I tried to point out to you that being poor is more than that.  You failed to understand the point and lashed out.

Fine.  Take your narrative that your were poor if that helps you in some way.  But to those of us that really were poor, you just look silly.

Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2013, 05:41:19 PM
No, the whole discussion was about whether I was wrong to have claimed I was "poor" for a few years after getting out of university, simply because I was earning very little money as a potter's assistant.

I never made any of those claims for "heroism" or whatever. In fact, I very specifically told CC I was *not* making those claims in the very first exchange. In fact, far from complaining about how I had it tough, I went further, and told him I had in fact had benefits available to few, such as free tuition as a "perk" of my dad's job as a prof.

That's why this whole discussion is highly annoying. CC's framed the debate based on a complete and utter fabrication and you are buying into it.

Sounds like we're in agreement; the debate is about the framing of "poor". Neither you nor CC are ceding one inch on your respective readings.

Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2013, 06:14:23 PM
Sounds like we're in agreement; the debate is about the framing of "poor". Neither you nor CC are ceding one inch on your respective readings.

That's not fair.  Malthus has objectively described his situation and expressed willingness to substitute any appropriate terminology for poor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 06:26:12 PM
That's not fair.  Malthus has objectively described his situation and expressed willingness to substitute any appropriate terminology for poor.

You're right. Malthus did concede the point somewhat earlier, but clearly CC was not satisfied with the particulars of the concession.

Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2013, 06:32:47 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 06:26:12 PM
That's not fair.  Malthus has objectively described his situation and expressed willingness to substitute any appropriate terminology for poor.

You're right. Malthus did concede the point somewhat earlier, but clearly CC was not satisfied with the particulars of the concession.

Malthus conceded the point almost immediately.  He said he would be more than happy to use a better one word descriptor if someone came up with one.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 24, 2013, 05:48:41 PM
For the record I thought Malthus had an expensive stroller, but that the $2,000 stroller was a hyperbolic exaggeration.

I thought it was his stroller as well, and I thought that the $2000 was the real price, and that the higher prices mentioned were trolling exaggerations. :unsure: 

I thought Malthus paid $2000 for the blood of gentile babies.

Quote from: PDH on June 24, 2013, 07:28:56 PM
I thought Malthus paid $2000 for the blood of gentile babies.

I thought he was a gentle baby.

Quote from: PDH on June 24, 2013, 07:28:56 PM
I thought Malthus paid $2000 for the blood of gentile babies.

That's a pretty good price.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:43:26 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2013, 10:41:37 AM
Yes, but the problem with relative poverty is where are the lines to be drawn?

I have long argued in favor of ditching relative definitions of poverty and using absolute definitions instead.

Haha.  I'll bet you have.

I know, I'm 1000% sure Money has already made this crack.  But c'mon.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 24, 2013, 05:48:41 PM
For the record I thought Malthus had an expensive stroller, but that the $2,000 stroller was a hyperbolic exaggeration.

Malthus lives in a neighborhood so rich that a sub-$2000 stroller generates gossip, so it's actually worse than if he just bought one for no reason.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2013, 08:05:16 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 24, 2013, 05:48:41 PM
For the record I thought Malthus had an expensive stroller, but that the $2,000 stroller was a hyperbolic exaggeration.

Malthus lives in a neighborhood so rich that a sub-$2000 stroller generates gossip, so it's actually worse than if he just bought one for no reason.

I just spit out my drink. :D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 06:26:12 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2013, 06:14:23 PM
Sounds like we're in agreement; the debate is about the framing of "poor". Neither you nor CC are ceding one inch on your respective readings.

That's not fair.  Malthus has objectively described his situation and expressed willingness to substitute any appropriate terminology for poor.

Agreed. Malthus seems to be workung on good faith here.

If it matters at all, I see Malthus' and CC's points, and I don't see a simple solution. As I said earlier, from my perspective, Mal spent some time as a broke potter's assistant. If that's poor to him, then he can feel free to say so. However, in doing so, expect people like me to think you mean something entirely different when you use that word. It's a limitation of the English language, and one that can easily lead to bad feelings, as can be seen here.

And FWIW, I don't consider growing up poor some kind of badge of honor. It was my life. I had no more control over who I was born to or how I was raised than Malthus did. I'm neither proud nor ashamed. I'm just fucking glad it's over. :ph34r:

These kinds of threads are a bummer to me since I have a lot I'd imagine saying, but don't want to get too personal, either in my own life experience or others.  :( I keep ending up on the verge of a substantive comment, but pull back at the brink.

My parents were teh poor when I grew up. We had no car, because too expensive (when every other family had one). Before I was born, my family spent a Christmas without electricity, because the bill wasn't paid. Most of my child/teen years, we lived off welfare, while my father was fighting for a disability pension. We never went on vacation anywhere, while everyone else spent two weeks in Spain, or Italy, or Turkey.

Still, my parents always made sure we had something to eat on the table, and clean clothes, and they emphasized education (though I was the only of four kids to take that advice).

heh, a bit of vile thread.


Clearly Malthus has experienced what it means to be poor, and has a better idea about it then, say, I do.

But one cannot deny the fact that he had a cushion. It wasn't a matter of real survival for him, because he could reasonably expect his parents to save him from ruin.

That said, unless you are something of an immigrant far away from your contacts, or an orphan, or a really big asshole, can you really claim you were in danger of proper homelessness and starvation when you were poor? How many of you had no parents, no family, no friends whom they could expect to fall back on at least temporarily for survival?


There was a comment by CC how his basketball scholarship or whatever was more honorable than Malthus basically inheriting his free spot at uni.
It is true, I imagine getting that sport scholarship was a lot of hard work. Still, the talent and abilities which allowed him to get this result via work were inherited. :P

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 02:39:30 AM
Still, the talent and abilities and the extra-long skeleton which allowed him to get this result via work were inherited. :P

A long skeleton isn't enough. You need appropriately sized skin, sinews and muscle or you'll be a freak out of nightmare and not a basketball player.

I figure those parts stretch & grow to meet needs.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 03:34:40 AM
I figure those parts stretch & grow to meet needs.

In extreme cases they can lag a bit at places like knees, though.  :pinch:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 03:34:40 AM
I figure those parts stretch & grow to meet needs.

Not everything grows to meet needs.

Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2013, 04:20:21 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 03:34:40 AM
I figure those parts stretch & grow to meet needs.

Not everything grows to meet needs.

:console:

Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2013, 07:58:32 PM
Haha.  I'll bet you have.

I know, I'm 1000% sure Money has already made this crack.  But c'mon.

wut?

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 02:39:30 AM
That said, unless you are something of an immigrant far away from your contacts,

:smarty:

That's where backup glasses come in.

Quote from: PDH on June 24, 2013, 07:28:56 PM
I thought Malthus paid $2000 for the blood of gentile babies.

They are either more expensive than that, or free.  :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 06:11:06 PM
Fine.  Take your narrative that your were poor if that helps you in some way.  But to those of us that really were poor, you just look silly.

I think that by this point, we both look silly no matter who was in the right.  :lol:

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 02:39:30 AM

That said, unless you are something of an immigrant far away from your contacts, or an orphan, or a really big asshole, can you really claim you were in danger of proper homelessness and starvation when you were poor? How many of you had no parents, no family, no friends whom they could expect to fall back on at least temporarily for survival?

When your friends and family has no more money than you do - which isn't enough to live on - how do you go to them to ask for a handout, or a place to live, or food?

The significance of emergency backup depends a lot on age and family status. Being a single guy in his 20s, naturaly I thought I was immortal, and never had any particular emergencies which would have required seeking help. Have kids, or have to take care of the elderly, and that all changes. Then emergencies and worries come thick and fast.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 08:01:54 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 06:11:06 PM
Fine.  Take your narrative that your were poor if that helps you in some way.  But to those of us that really were poor, you just look silly.

I think that by this point, we both look silly no matter who was in the right.  :lol:

None of us can truly be considered poor has long as we have this thread.

I was born rich, grew up poor, and am now middle class. I have the cornucopia of financial experiences :P

For what it's worth, I think Malthus was poor.

Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 08:20:30 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 08:01:54 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 06:11:06 PM
Fine.  Take your narrative that your were poor if that helps you in some way.  But to those of us that really were poor, you just look silly.

I think that by this point, we both look silly no matter who was in the right.  :lol:

None of us can truly be considered poor has long as we have this thread.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3

The poor in money are shit outta luck. Malthus 3:5

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 08:19:13 AM
The significance of emergency backup depends a lot on age and family status. Being a single guy in his 20s, naturaly I thought I was immortal, and never had any particular emergencies which would have required seeking help. Have kids, or have to take care of the elderly, and that all changes. Then emergencies and worries come thick and fast.

:yes:

I was poor growing up, with no cushion to speak of beyond the neighbors taking my sister and I in. After college, I wasn't, but my stress levels were a lot higher since I had four kids to take care of. After the divorce, I can't begin to tell you the stress that I was under financially, but by then I did have a cushion as my parents were doing better and my brother was (and is) doing very well for himself. Both offered a hand if needed (which I can honestly say, other than an old car of my sister's that I still owe her some money on, I never took).

So, the financial situation was a bit more dire, but I knew that if I really needed help, it was there. The kids never starved, we always had a comfortable roof over our heads, and while cable was a luxury we managed without for most of their childhoods, the utilities were never shut off. I can't imagine how scary it was for my mom since she didn't have that same cushion.  :ph34r:

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 08:24:25 AM
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3

The poor in money are shit outta luck. Malthus 3:5

That Jesus guy knew how to turn a phrase.

Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 02:39:54 PM
Malthus, give it up dude.  Once the people of Languish decide something about you, that's it.  THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  That's why I work in HR and eat out of dumpsters to these people, and will forever do so.

MAH LUNCH

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 03:11:48 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2013, 03:04:45 PM
As though being labelled poor is somehow an achievement or virtuous. It's not. :contract:

It does however grant you bonus points in the game of life achievement.

Cool, I'll keep that in mind when I'm eventually forced to sell my home.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 02:39:30 AM
There was a comment by CC how his basketball scholarship or whatever was more honorable than Malthus basically inheriting his free spot at uni.

Complete fucking bullshit.  I said that Malthus had a great advantage over most everyone else because he did not have to pay for his undergrad.  Someone quipped that I didnt have to do so either.  I responded that my situation was different from Malthus in two important respects.  First, even with scholarships I still ended up with debt and second I earned my scholarships whereas Malthus' benefit was an accident of birth.

That goes to the whole point that Malthus' claim to have been poor in misguided because it ignores the advantages his upper middle class status gave to him.  Honour has nothing to do with it. 

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 08:14:29 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 02:39:30 AM

That said, unless you are something of an immigrant far away from your contacts, or an orphan, or a really big asshole, can you really claim you were in danger of proper homelessness and starvation when you were poor? How many of you had no parents, no family, no friends whom they could expect to fall back on at least temporarily for survival?

When your friends and family has no more money than you do - which isn't enough to live on - how do you go to them to ask for a handout, or a place to live, or food?

Its funny because Tamas earlier said he has no idea what it is like to be poor and now he is pontificating on how only a small subset of the poor (like complete assholes) are in any danger of being hungry or homeless.

I suppose the take home message from that is that if Tamas ever becomes poor he most certainly would be homeless and hungry.

What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is. ;)

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 10:40:12 AM
What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is. ;)

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor. :mellow:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 10:42:40 AM

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 10:40:12 AM
What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is. ;)

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor. :mellow:

I dont think she is saying that at all.  But it is illuminating to have read some posts of people who think they might know what it is like to be poor.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 10:29:27 AM
That goes to the whole point that Malthus' claim to have been poor in misguided because it ignores the advantages his upper middle class status gave to him. 

Assuming you ignore the fact I stated all along that I had such advantages and that this made my situation different from those who grew up in poor families. To repeat, you only know of my free undergrad because I told you about it, specifically to make that point.

Issue here is that you don't own the word "poor" and not every use of that word refers to (1) people growing up poor; or alternatively (2) Calcutta scavangers; who could, without a doubt, raise xactly the same remarks to you, as you have to me!

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 11:08:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 10:29:27 AM
That goes to the whole point that Malthus' claim to have been poor in misguided because it ignores the advantages his upper middle class status gave to him. 

Assuming you ignore the fact I stated all along that I had such advantages and that this made my situation different from those who grew up in poor families. To repeat, you only know of my free undergrad because I told you about it, specifically to make that point.

Issue here is that you don't own the word "poor" and not every use of that word refers to (1) people growing up poor; or alternatively (2) Calcutta scavangers; who could, without a doubt, raise xactly the same remarks to you, as you have to me!

I know you say that Malthus.  But then you went on for some time to defend your assertion that for a brief time you were poor by some technical statistical model you were in fact poor and by the fact that for a brief time you ran the risk of downward mobility.  When those arguments were refuted you seem to have retreated from that line of argument and now you are saying something along the lines that you didnt actually claim to be poor but immediately acknowledged that you hadnt been but couldn't find the right word to discribe your poor like state.

You are quite right to say I dont own the word.  But it is important that it not lose its meaning either.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 10:42:40 AM

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 10:40:12 AM
What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is. ;)

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor. :mellow:

Is that how you read that? Interesting, as it's not at all what I meant.

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 11:42:51 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 10:42:40 AM

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 10:40:12 AM
What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is. ;)

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor. :mellow:

Is that how you read that? Interesting, as it's not at all what I meant.

The question is, how do you differentiate between those who have been poor and know it and those who think they were poor but weren't?

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 11:42:51 AM
Is that how you read that? Interesting, as it's not at all what I meant.

There were only two interpretations that I could come up with.  One was that if you have some doubt, your are not poor.  Only those people that are absolutely sure they are poor are in fact poor.

Of the two, the one I posted earlier made more sense: there are the true poor, of which you are/were one, and only the true poor can judge who the true poor are.  So not, strictly speaking, just you, but you and others who you deem true poor.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 08:36:50 AM

Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 02:39:54 PM
Malthus, give it up dude.  Once the people of Languish decide something about you, that's it.  THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  That's why I work in HR and eat out of dumpsters to these people, and will forever do so.

MAH LUNCH

:lol:

MAH AUTOMATED HUMAN RESOURCES SOLUTION

As an aside, I don't fit in any of those categories.  I've been lucky and never been poor, although I've worked a few minimum wage/factory jobs in my time.  I'd never argue that there isn't anybody who is poor.

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 11:55:44 AM

The question is, how do you differentiate between those who have been poor and know it and those who think they were poor but weren't?

I think that's up to the person. It is, as has been said throughout all of these threads, relative.

The problem, of course, comes in when someone believes themself to be poor but another thinks otherwise. I hear Malthus' story, and I think that he was broke for a few years, and then went back to what he knew. But to Malthus, that was a time in his life where he was, for all intents and purposes, poor. Neither is wrong, per se, but if there's a question by someone else whether or not you're poor.... well, at that point, isn't it really that you think you were poor, but others don't?

Of course, the same applies to my own claim to poverty, doesn't it? Someone could easily say that I wasn't poor either, since I had a place to live and didn't die of starvation or suffer severe malnutrition.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 11:59:30 AM

There were only two interpretations that I could come up with.  One was that if you have some doubt, your are not poor.  Only those people that are absolutely sure they are poor are in fact poor.

Of the two, the one I posted earlier made more sense: there are the true poor, of which you are/were one, and only the true poor can judge who the true poor are.  So not, strictly speaking, just you, but you and others who you deem true poor.

Your second interpretation is more correct in what I was thinking. If you're not sure if you were poor or not, then you probably haven't really been poor.

And by the way, I didn't know I was poor growing up. I was no different than anyone else in my neighborhood. It wasn't until I went to high school that I understood just how poor we were. So, if anything, I would fit more in with Malthus than CC under those circumstances. :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:22:27 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 11:08:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 10:29:27 AM
That goes to the whole point that Malthus' claim to have been poor in misguided because it ignores the advantages his upper middle class status gave to him. 

Assuming you ignore the fact I stated all along that I had such advantages and that this made my situation different from those who grew up in poor families. To repeat, you only know of my free undergrad because I told you about it, specifically to make that point.

Issue here is that you don't own the word "poor" and not every use of that word refers to (1) people growing up poor; or alternatively (2) Calcutta scavangers; who could, without a doubt, raise xactly the same remarks to you, as you have to me!

I know you say that Malthus.  But then you went on for some time to defend your assertion that for a brief time you were poor by some technical statistical model you were in fact poor and by the fact that for a brief time you ran the risk of downward mobility.  When those arguments were refuted you seem to have retreated from that line of argument and now you are saying something along the lines that you didnt actually claim to be poor but immediately acknowledged that you hadnt been but couldn't find the right word to discribe your poor like state.

You are quite right to say I dont own the word.  But it is important that it not lose its meaning either.

I never retreated from anything. Nor did you "refute" my arguments. Nor do I think that the so-called 'poverty line' is some mere "technical statistical model".

I said (and stand by it) that, after I was outta undergrad, I was "poor" by the usual, sensible and realistic meaning of the word - i.e., that I earned less money than the generally recognized level that is considered, by social scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, to constitute "poverty".

It is important to recognize what this claim isn't. Contrary to your position, it isn't a claim that I had it "really tough", and it isn't a claim that my situation was "just the same" as someone who grew up in a poor family. People can be "poor" in different ways. When you use the term, you mean someone who grew up in a particular social class: someone raised without the benefits of a middle-class upbringing. When I used the term, I meant someone who earned little money - less than the 'poverty line' for that time and place. Another person can mean by the term "poor" someone who is absolutely deprived of the necessities of life - your Calcutta scavenger. To that person, both you and I are mistaking relative deprivation for "true poverty".

Your definition is cool and all that, but it isn't the only meaning of the word, and you must know it. I was willing to use a different word to describe what I was, purely to mollify you, but none made any sense.

I proved my point with facts and stuff. Moreover, I haven't changed my tune in the least since my very first posts on the topic. You are simply asserting, over and over again, that your definition and your definition alone is meaningful, and anyone who disagrees, for some reason, makes you mad. Meanwhile, you aren't closely reading what I'm saying. 

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:45:42 PM
I said (and stand by it) that, after I was outta undergrad, I was "poor" by the usual, sensible and realistic meaning of the word - i.e., that I earned less money than the generally recognized level that is considered, by social scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, to constitute "poverty".

And this is why I have consistently called bullshit.  You have no understanding at all, even after all these pages.

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 12:26:31 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 11:55:44 AM

The question is, how do you differentiate between those who have been poor and know it and those who think they were poor but weren't?

I think that's up to the person. It is, as has been said throughout all of these threads, relative.

Which comes back to Yi's point that there is someone judging who qualifies.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 12:47:49 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:45:42 PM
I said (and stand by it) that, after I was outta undergrad, I was "poor" by the usual, sensible and realistic meaning of the word - i.e., that I earned less money than the generally recognized level that is considered, by social scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, to constitute "poverty".

And this is why I have consistently called bullshit.  You have no understanding at all, even after all these pages.

I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 11:59:30 AM

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 11:42:51 AM
Is that how you read that? Interesting, as it's not at all what I meant.

There were only two interpretations that I could come up with.  One was that if you have some doubt, your are not poor.  Only those people that are absolutely sure they are poor are in fact poor.

Of the two, the one I posted earlier made more sense: there are the true poor, of which you are/were one, and only the true poor can judge who the true poor are.  So not, strictly speaking, just you, but you and others who you deem true poor.

There is at least one more reasonable interpretation: The True Poor^TM are a subset of those who think they are poor. No authority is implied over who is in that subset.

Quote from: Maximus on June 25, 2013, 12:53:28 PM
There is at least one more reasonable interpretation: The True Poor^TM are a subset of those who think they are poor. No authority is implied over who is in that subset.

For this one you need to ignore the language about poor people knowing it.

Hello, my name is Siege Breaker, and I am a poor.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

:D

Honestly, I've never encountered anything like this level of sensitivity about the "p" word.

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

Or at least not be born into the upper class of Canadian society. ;)

Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:58:12 PM
Hello, my name is Siege Breaker, and I am a poor.

Prove it.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 01:07:17 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

:D

Honestly, I've never encountered anything like this level of sensitivity about the "p" word.

Not surprising, given that the peer group you had.

Poor group?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 12:55:53 PM

Quote from: Maximus on June 25, 2013, 12:53:28 PM
There is at least one more reasonable interpretation: The True Poor^TM are a subset of those who think they are poor. No authority is implied over who is in that subset.

For this one you need to ignore the language about poor people knowing it.

Obviously Meri was speaking colloquially.

However in order to make this thread interesting:
What is the functional difference between knowing something and thinking you know something when in fact it is unknowable?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 01:07:17 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

:D

Honestly, I've never encountered anything like this level of sensitivity about the "p" word.

Not surprising, given that the peer group you had.

People who are not crazy?  :hmm:

This is one of the gayest threads in Languish history, which is why I'm disappointed Mart couldn't be here to contribute to it. :(

Quote from: Maximus on June 25, 2013, 01:15:57 PM
Obviously Meri was speaking colloquially.

Ah, the figurative sense of "know."  :P

QuoteHowever in order to make this thread interesting:
What is the functional difference between knowing something and thinking you know something when in fact it is unknowable?

I give up.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 01:17:31 PM
People who are not crazy?  :hmm:

Yeah, because rich kids who think they are poor have no problem with their grip on reality at all.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 01:20:10 PM
I give up.

You are watching a magic show.

Two blind magicians each draw a marble from a bag that contains red and blue marbles. Magician A draws a red marble, magician B draws a blue marble.

Each conducts his divination and proclaims that he has drawn a red marble.

The ambiguity of natural language would lead us to say that Magician A knows, while magician B just thinks he knows. In fact there is no functional difference.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 01:20:10 PM
Ah, the figurative sense of "know."  :P

The colloquial sense of "know" which means something like "thinks he knows, but doesn't. However it so happens he is correct."

I've never encountered that colloquial meaning of know.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
I've never encountered that colloquial meaning of know.

So is that an unknown known, a known unknown, or an unknown unknown?  :hmm:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
I've never encountered that colloquial meaning of know.

:huh:
You did just now.

Quote from: Maximus on June 25, 2013, 01:43:46 PM
:huh:
You did just now.

The colloquial sense of know suggests it has some currency.  i can't just say the colloquial sense of know is salmon loaf.

Quote from: Maximus on June 25, 2013, 01:39:05 PM
The ambiguity of natural language would lead us to say that Magician A knows, while magician B just thinks he knows. In fact there is no functional difference.

Both of those count as "knows."

Quotetransitive verb
1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know

Magicians A and B both fall under definition 2a, with both "be[ing] convinced or certain of" the red marble, even though A is right and B is wrong.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 01:37:18 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 01:17:31 PM
People who are not crazy?  :hmm:

Yeah, because rich kids who think they are poor have no problem with their grip on reality at all.

People taking incredible, drawn-out umbrage over the ordinary use of the word "poor", on the other hand ...  :hmm:

If only there was a way to monetize this thread, we'd never be poor.

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

I'm sure they'd also be annoyed if he called himself black.

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

I'm sure they'd also be annoyed if he called himself black.

Perhaps though I think part of that would depend on why. I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 01:07:17 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

:D

Honestly, I've never encountered anything like this level of sensitivity about the "p" word.

Here is an analogy to make it clear. 

Let's say that you mention in some thread how many years ago, on one night, your limo driver got lost in the city, and you missed your dinner in the four star restaurant.  You were starving due to missing that dinner, and that traumatic experience made you resolved to always have a helicopter on standby in case such situation occurs again with the new limo driver.  When a Holocaust survivor reads that thread, he would not appreciate your use of the word "starving".

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:58:02 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

I'm sure they'd also be annoyed if he called himself black.

Perhaps though I think part of that would depend on why. I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057889/

:hmm:

Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2013, 02:00:16 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 01:07:17 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.

I think it's a black thing, you don't have the right to use the "p" word.

:D

Honestly, I've never encountered anything like this level of sensitivity about the "p" word.

Here is an analogy to make it clear. 

Let's say that you mention in some thread how many years ago, on one night, your limo driver got lost in the city, and you missed your dinner in the four star restaurant.  You were starving due to missing that dinner, and that traumatic experience made you resolved to always have a helicopter on standby in case such situation occurs again with the new limo driver.  When a Holocaust survivor reads that thread, he would not appreciate your use of the word "starving".

That's a really, really stupid analogy, because people say "I'm starving" all the time when they don't literally mean they were starving to death, and no-body - not a holocaust survivor, not an refugee from central africa - no-one would claim that it is somehow offensive to say "I'm starving, wanna grab a burger?"  :lol:

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM

How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

No-no. I don't take issue with his use of the word for himself at all, anymore. He's convinced me that he's correct - from his perspective - in what he says. At this point, I don't agree with his use of the word "poor" because of the confusion that it can cause, not because I don't believe that he was or wasn't poor.

If he chooses to use that particular word to describe his circumstances, he absolutely can do so. My only remaining concern is that in doing so, his circumstances can be misconstrued to mean something that he doesn't mean. Malthus has pointed out, however, that he's kind of between a rock and a hard place on that one. I suggested broke, as his circumstances were transient, but he didn't like that word. Since I can't offer any other suggestions, I kind of feel like the conversation is at an impasse.

So far as I'm concerned, I no longer have a dog in this fight.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:58:02 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

I'm sure they'd also be annoyed if he called himself black.

Perhaps though I think part of that would depend on why. I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057889/

:hmm:

You're going to star in a movie where you pretend to be black? :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:58:02 PM
I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1703089_md.jpg&hash=6d0695e692bb5318c86f0f6fd9b3b23e4efdb0bb)

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 02:08:30 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM

How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

No-no. I don't take issue with his use of the word for himself at all, anymore. He's convinced me that he's correct - from his perspective - in what he says. At this point, I don't agree with his use of the word "poor" because of the confusion that it can cause, not because I don't believe that he was or wasn't poor.

If he chooses to use that particular word to describe his circumstances, he absolutely can do so. My only remaining concern is that in doing so, his circumstances can be misconstrued to mean something that he doesn't mean. Malthus has pointed out, however, that he's kind of between a rock and a hard place on that one. I suggested broke, as his circumstances were transient, but he didn't like that word. Since I can't offer any other suggestions, I kind of feel like the conversation is at an impasse.

So far as I'm concerned, I no longer have a dog in this fight.

I don't really mind "broke", only it doesn't really fit well with a condition that lasts years. "For a few years after undergraduate, I was broke" sounds like I had no cash at all.

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:10:40 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:58:02 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

I'm sure they'd also be annoyed if he called himself black.

Perhaps though I think part of that would depend on why. I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057889/

:hmm:

You're going to star in a movie where you pretend to be black? :unsure:

Hey, you asked for a "legitimate" reason.  :D

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 02:11:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:58:02 PM
I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1703089_md.jpg&hash=6d0695e692bb5318c86f0f6fd9b3b23e4efdb0bb)

Unlike Seedy, who *is* a Black Single Mother of Six ... cats.  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:10:40 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:58:02 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

I'm sure they'd also be annoyed if he called himself black.

Perhaps though I think part of that would depend on why. I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057889/

:hmm:

You're going to star in a movie where you pretend to be black? :unsure:

Hey, you asked for a "legitimate" reason.  :D

I don't think that's legitimate.

That said, I do recall one legit reason. If you were calling yourself black as in Canadian then that would work for me.

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:21:52 PM
I don't think that's legitimate.

That said, I do recall one legit reason. If you were calling yourself black as in Canadian then that would work for me.

I was riffing on the use of "scare quotes".  ;)

Does that 'Canadian' thing work in reverse?

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
Does that 'Canadian' thing work in reverse?

To be honest, I can't even remember where we'd gotten that you can use black as a synonym for Canadian. -_-

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:25:54 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
Does that 'Canadian' thing work in reverse?

To be honest, I can't even remember where we'd gotten that you can use black as a synonym for Canadian. -_-

I thought the original 'thing' was that racists used 'Canadian' for 'Black', so that they could plausibly deny being racist? As in, 'those Canadians sure are lousy tippers. And they don't care for working.'

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:28:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:25:54 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
Does that 'Canadian' thing work in reverse?

To be honest, I can't even remember where we'd gotten that you can use black as a synonym for Canadian. -_-

I thought the original 'thing' was that racists used 'Canadian' for 'Black', so that they could plausibly deny being racist? As in, 'those Canadians sure are lousy tippers. And they don't care for working.'

Ah, using this search string "canadian as euphemism for black", I found that you were correct. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:19:57 PM
Unlike Seedy, who *is* a Black Single Mother of Six ... cats.  ;)

:lol:

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:28:20 PM
'those Canadians sure are lousy tippers. And they don't care for working.'

And they're afraid of the dark.

This is one of the weirdest languish threads in a very long time.

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:39:58 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:28:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:25:54 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
Does that 'Canadian' thing work in reverse?

To be honest, I can't even remember where we'd gotten that you can use black as a synonym for Canadian. -_-

I thought the original 'thing' was that racists used 'Canadian' for 'Black', so that they could plausibly deny being racist? As in, 'those Canadians sure are lousy tippers. And they don't care for working.'

Ah, using this search string "canadian as euphemism for black", I found that you were correct. :thumbsup:

Interesting never heard of that before, either; you'd have thought it would have come up on this forum before ?

Quote from: mongers on June 25, 2013, 05:46:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:39:58 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:28:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 02:25:54 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
Does that 'Canadian' thing work in reverse?

To be honest, I can't even remember where we'd gotten that you can use black as a synonym for Canadian. -_-

I thought the original 'thing' was that racists used 'Canadian' for 'Black', so that they could plausibly deny being racist? As in, 'those Canadians sure are lousy tippers. And they don't care for working.'

Ah, using this search string "canadian as euphemism for black", I found that you were correct. :thumbsup:

Interesting never heard of that before, either; you'd have thought it would have come up on this forum before ?

It has. That's what I was referencing though I reversed it. :D

Teach references it now and again. We had a thread, before one of the board reboots, about it.

Quote from: HVC on June 25, 2013, 05:38:54 PM
This is one of the weirdest languish threads in a very long time.

:hug:

Quote from: HVC on June 25, 2013, 05:38:54 PM
This is one of the weirdest languish threads in a very long time.

It is like watching a special needs class fighting over a candy bar.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2013, 07:13:33 PM
It is like watching a special needs class fighting over a candy bar.

So much like your home life, then?

Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 07:14:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2013, 07:13:33 PM
It is like watching a special needs class fighting over a candy bar.

So much like your home life, then?

I'll ignore that crack.

Aka the Troof hurts!

Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 07:14:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2013, 07:13:33 PM
It is like watching a special needs class fighting over a candy bar.

So much like your home life, then?

Hey, that's one of my future wives you're talking about!

Quote from: HVC on June 25, 2013, 07:20:20 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 07:14:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2013, 07:13:33 PM
It is like watching a special needs class fighting over a candy bar.

So much like your home life, then?

Hey, that's one of my future wives you're talking about!

None of my kids is marrying an eggplant.

As for Jacob, I'm assuming he didn't mean to call my kids retards.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree!

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2013, 07:22:22 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 25, 2013, 07:20:20 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 07:14:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2013, 07:13:33 PM
It is like watching a special needs class fighting over a candy bar.

So much like your home life, then?

Hey, that's one of my future wives you're talking about!

None of my kids is marrying an eggplant.

:(

QuoteAs for Jacob, I'm assuming he didn't mean to call my kids retards.

It's hard to tell with him :lol:

Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 07:14:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2013, 07:13:33 PM
It is like watching a special needs class fighting over a candy bar.

So much like your home life, then?

:o (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wenpigsfly.org%2FcardY.gif&hash=7d26c48152ec226f85e6062c419dfdd2270fef5b) (http://www.wenpigsfly.org)

Why is Hitler waving a post it note?

It was his thing.

 :mad: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wenpigsfly.org%2FcardY.gif&hash=7d26c48152ec226f85e6062c419dfdd2270fef5b) (http://www.wenpigsfly.org)

Quote from: katmai on June 25, 2013, 10:36:08 PM
Why is Hitler waving a post it note?

:lol:

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2013, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:58:02 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 25, 2013, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 01:53:27 PM
How is it like that at all? Meri and CC aren't taking issue with the word poor but just as he applies to himself. I don't think the same would be true if Malthus started calling himself the n-word in public. Then black people would probably take issue with the word itself just as much as him applying it to himself.

I'm sure they'd also be annoyed if he called himself black.

Perhaps though I think part of that would depend on why. I'm not sure I can think of a "legitimate" reason for Malthus to call himself black.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057889/

:hmm:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091991/

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 10:32:26 AM

Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 08:14:29 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 02:39:30 AM

That said, unless you are something of an immigrant far away from your contacts, or an orphan, or a really big asshole, can you really claim you were in danger of proper homelessness and starvation when you were poor? How many of you had no parents, no family, no friends whom they could expect to fall back on at least temporarily for survival?

When your friends and family has no more money than you do - which isn't enough to live on - how do you go to them to ask for a handout, or a place to live, or food?

Its funny because Tamas earlier said he has no idea what it is like to be poor and now he is pontificating on how only a small subset of the poor (like complete assholes) are in any danger of being hungry or homeless.

I suppose the take home message from that is that if Tamas ever becomes poor he most certainly would be homeless and hungry.

What the fuck?

the chief argument against Malthus' claim of being poor at some point in his life was basically that he didn't face the "fail to pay your costs and die of hunger" situation.
It wasn't ME making that connection, but several others, I just spelled it out. :P

If ANYTHING, my point was that you CAN be poor without having the "one wrong month -> die for certain" condition.

Jeesh, I knew I shouldn't be involved in this thread. Too many egos without their protective shells out in the sun.

Jeez, way to miss the point, Beety.  Malthus wasn't never poor because he is a Jew in North America  :rolleyes:

At least we all know now that this is a great topic to raise in a forum that we want to troll  :D

Four Yorkshiremen, anyone?

You know, by all accounts, going to college is a rough period for many students. I had so many classmates that had to learn how to wash laundry or go to the grocery store. All new to them and challenging!

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 07:40:19 AM
I had so many classmates that had to learn how to wash laundry or go to the grocery store. All new to them and challenging!

I had that stuff down pat;  it was the actual studying and applying myself that I had never done before.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 07:40:19 AM
You know, by all accounts, going to college is a rough period for many students. I had so many classmates that had to learn how to wash laundry or go to the grocery store. All new to them and challenging!

How do you not just know that stuff?  I never had anyone show me how to do it-- it was just common knowledge.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 07:41:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 07:40:19 AM
I had so many classmates that had to learn how to wash laundry or go to the grocery store. All new to them and challenging!

I had that stuff down pat;  it was the actual studying and applying myself that I had never done before.

:yes:

I'm learning to apply myself now - and yes, study even - and I'm still amazed at the amount of actual work is involved in it. No wonder I didn't bother trying in college the first time around.

Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 08:15:10 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 07:40:19 AM
You know, by all accounts, going to college is a rough period for many students. I had so many classmates that had to learn how to wash laundry or go to the grocery store. All new to them and challenging!

How do you not just know that stuff?  I never had anyone show me how to do it-- it was just common knowledge.

Presumably they never had to do anything like it.  And at least on the washing front, it is totally possible to fuck things up if you don't know some basics, pink laundry, shrunk laundry, etc.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 08:20:55 AM
Presumably they never had to do anything like it.  And at least on the washing front, it is totally possible to fuck things up if you don't know some basics, pink laundry, shrunk laundry, etc.

I've taught I don't know how many kids how to do laundry, how to cook meals, etc., and not just my own kids. Hell, my current study-buddy is from Panama and had never had to even clean up after himself. The family had a maid his entire life. His aunt had to teach him how to grocery shop, do laundry, cook some basic meals, etc. when he moved here. The man is 25 years old. :blink:

Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 08:24:38 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 08:20:55 AM
Presumably they never had to do anything like it.  And at least on the washing front, it is totally possible to fuck things up if you don't know some basics, pink laundry, shrunk laundry, etc.

I've taught I don't know how many kids how to do laundry, how to cook meals, etc., and not just my own kids. Hell, my current study-buddy is from Panama and had never had to even clean up after himself. The family had a maid his entire life. His aunt had to teach him how to grocery shop, do laundry, cook some basic meals, etc. when he moved here. The man is 25 years old. :blink:

Well yes that's what I was getting at. Many of these kids didn't have to do anything of the sort which at the time I found very shocking.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 07:41:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 07:40:19 AM
I had so many classmates that had to learn how to wash laundry or go to the grocery store. All new to them and challenging!

I had that stuff down pat;  it was the actual studying and applying myself that I had never done before.

I'd never gotten drunk or kissed a boy. I remedied that freshmen year. :D

Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 08:20:39 AM
I'm learning to apply myself now - and yes, study even - and I'm still amazed at the amount of actual work is involved in it. No wonder I didn't bother trying in college the first time around.

I was having a smoke break with some of the young 'uns after we got back our midterms. 

They seemed completely fascinated by the concept that part of getting an A on the exam hinged on actually buying the textbook for the class.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 08:26:48 AM
I'd never gotten drunk or kissed a boy. I remedied that freshmen year. :D

Oh, I bet you did.  :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 08:29:25 AM
I was having a smoke break with some of the young 'uns after we got back our midterms. 

They seemed completely fascinated by the concept that part of getting an A on the exam hinged on actually buying the textbook for the class.

Heh.... my study-buddy didn't think a text book was necessary for our last class, since he could just look it all up on the internet. Except that the assignments were straight out of the book - as in printed in the book, page 57, problem #2.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 08:29:25 AM

Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 08:20:39 AM
I'm learning to apply myself now - and yes, study even - and I'm still amazed at the amount of actual work is involved in it. No wonder I didn't bother trying in college the first time around.

I was having a smoke break with some of the young 'uns after we got back our midterms. 

They seemed completely fascinated by the concept that part of getting an A on the exam hinged on actually buying the textbook for the class.

I think that's odd. I definitely had course readers I didn't buy and ended with As in the course.

Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 08:39:13 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 08:29:25 AM
I was having a smoke break with some of the young 'uns after we got back our midterms. 

They seemed completely fascinated by the concept that part of getting an A on the exam hinged on actually buying the textbook for the class.

Heh.... my study-buddy didn't think a text book was necessary for our last class, since he could just look it all up on the internet. Except that the assignments were straight out of the book - as in printed in the book, page 57, problem #2.   :rolleyes:

:hmm:

That sounds more like lazy teaching.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 08:48:38 AM
I think that's odd. I definitely had course readers I didn't buy and ended with As in the course.

Sometimes--I've noticed--instructors assign chapters to read, and expect them to be read.  When he said, "read the Morgenthau chapter", he kinda meant it.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 08:49:16 AM
:hmm:

That sounds more like lazy teaching.

Have you not been paying attention?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 08:53:53 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 08:48:38 AM
I think that's odd. I definitely had course readers I didn't buy and ended with As in the course.

Sometimes--I've noticed--instructors assign chapters to read, and expect them to be read.  When he said, "read the Morgenthau chapter", he kinda meant it.

But.... why? I mean, there's gotta' be a synopsis on Google... right?

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 08:48:38 AM
I think that's odd. I definitely had course readers I didn't buy and ended with As in the course.

You just keep breaking through barriers all over the place, don't you.  Kudos.