|
Are we too far gone??
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Here is a great blog that i tripped over just now that pretty much sums up how i feel about where society is headed in a nutshell. He puts it a different way whereas i always say that im complaining about the complainers:
ARE WE TOO FAR GONE?
I want you to ask yourself a question. When was the last time you sat down and said to yourself, “you know what, I need to take more responsibility for my life. I could be doing a lot better with myself, if I started accepting that I’m where I am right now because I choose not to do anything about it, I would be better off”.
We grow up in this society with some perverse sense of entitlement, which leaves us saying something else to ourselves, “If the government provided me more assistance, I could better myself. The government is not doing enough to help me.”
This systemic problem of perceived and undeserved entitlement is on the rise, especially in the minds of young people. You hear it in their incessant protests. “Why do I have to have a student loan? Why should I have to pay for this?” This is such a sad state of affairs that it’s down right frightening.
And you can keep your “victims of circumstance” stories to yourselves; I am not ignorant of the idea that some people are such. But that doesn’t make them any more entitled to public capital than anybody else, especially those who contribute to it.
Getting out of the gutter is a choice that you make; it’s not a choice that somebody else makes for you. Your problems are your responsibilities, and your failing to deal with them and abate them is your fault. When you come to realize this, you’ll become a better person.
The compassionate, as they like to call themselves argue that people in such situations will not help themselves, so we must intervene. And even if they never do become self-sufficient, that it is society’s responsibility to carry their burden because it’s the “socially responsible” thing to do. Yet it’s not. It’s the socially destructive thing to do.
The long-standing argument that such hand-holding programs breed dependence holds true. Although dismissed outright by social workers and the likes, who let’s face it, livelihood depend on these programs, the reality is proven time and time again by those who have actually managed to pull themselves up out of the darkness and back into normal society. When you hear their stories, they make it unequivocally clear that it was a matter of choice between living on the street and making something of themselves. It was never due to lack of government funding for make-work programs, or even education. The opportunity to do something better was always there; it was just ignored, and even lamented.
Perhaps such radical thinking was too much the norm for Jeff Fillion of Quebec City’s, now condemned CHOI FM radio station. It turns out, that Quebec’s most popular radio show host was also left-Quebec’s most un-liked radio show host.
An avid proponent of Ralph Klein and Mike Harris, Fillion regulary pointed to Quebec’s socialist policies and language barrier as Quebecers economic woes vis-à-vis the relative success of Alberta and Ontario. In fact, Fillion, a native Quebecor and francophone, adamantly encouraged young Quebecers to learn English and move to the more-successful English-Canada. It’s no surprise now why none of the politicians in Quebec are criticizing the CRTC’s decision to bar Fillion from the airwaves. In fact, a member of the Parti Quebecois has even been quoted calling the decision well justified on the part of the CRTC.
I have no doubt in my mind, that if Jeff Fillion political views had been more of the left-wing variety, that we would be witnessing an explosive response from Quebec’s separatist movement, pointing to the incident as an invasion on freedom of speech and Quebec’s unique culture. But Fillion doesn’t share their vision, and therefore doesn’t earn their sympathy for his quarrels with the federal regulator. They want him gone more-so than the CRTC does.
So for a moment, we witness the silent alliance between the forces of the left and those who would tear this country apart, as the dissenting and threatening voice for personal responsibility is put to sleep, under the now raped version of what we call justice.
In his place, a new more acceptable voice will arise, one who is warmer to the baby-sitter state, who will promote the ideals of destitution to ensure the survival of great Trudeaupian dynasty. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
too long to read.. but i'll read it later..
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
| Right on. I think the first paragraph in the text is by far the most important one. |
|
|
| aarontrance |
| Incredibly true and I agree. People do think the government should do EVERYTHING for us, and it's sad. |
|
|
| MarkT |
It's not that black and white...but I do agree with much of what the first part says.
I'd agree more if, through hard work and incredible effort, people always COULD rise up and better their lives...unfortunately, there are people who struggle hard and still can't, or don't, make it (for whatever reason).
I'm all for people taking more responsibility over their own lives...but "compassiontate" doesn't have to be a dirty word. I like our social safety net and I'm not that bitter about contributing to something I will likely never personally benefit from for the rest of my life. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| the problem here is that "compassionate" people tackle a problem in a very wrong way. They keep hitting the wall when the door is right next to them. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
It's largely the social workers that are at fault, they're the ones who have been teaching people for the past hundred years to blame their problems on others. First it was parents, then spouses, then bosses, now it's just society in general.
I'm not of the mind that we should force everybody to do everything themselves, especially when they're under very tough circumstances. The trouble occurs when people become accustomed to the help they're getting.
I actually think of my mom as an analogy - she has to ask me for help with every single smallest thing with the computer, but doesn't actually listen to anything I tell her or try to learn anything useful. I basically function as a walking technology "cookbook", and it's very draining for me and doesn't benefit her much either. The only reason I use this example is because I figure it's probably one that many people here are familiar with, and it totally shows how people will become dependent on "help" as long as that "help" is available to them. And when help is not available - when I don't have time, or I'm not in the mood or too tired, then the situation becomes a crisis and it's somehow my fault. She's had 20 years to take a class on it or something, but whenever she can't figure out that she's supposed to click the "OK" button then it's my responsibility to set things straight.
I'm sure everybody can identify with this - I'm not writing this to bitch about my parents because I'm sure that 90% of the people here have the same kinds of issues. I'm hoping it's not too hard to see the analogy between the way parents get their kids to solve technology problems and the way individuals get society to solve money/social/life problems. It's a slippery slope, and the only way to stop it is to put hard limits on the amount of help people are allowed to solicit. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i find that when you help people, they usually take advantage of it. This is on a personal level and a societal level.
give a little, take a little. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i find that when you help people, they usually take advantage of it. This is on a personal level and a societal level.
give a little, take a little. |
I think we're all guilty of this to an extent, though. People get defensive when you say things like this because the way you phrase it makes it sound like they are doing it intentionally - actually, it's often a totally unconscious thing. People just get accustomed to help from others, just like they get accustomed to a computer or a cell phone.
Sadly, the only real way to stop other people from unconsciously getting accustomed like that is by making the quality and quantity of your assistance completely erratic and unpredictable. Which is basically called manipulation, and - just like taking advantage of other people's help - some do this consciously while others do it unconsciously. It may sound morally bankrupt, and it probably is, but most successful people do it because it mirrors human nature.
Socialism is guaranteed help. There is none of that unpredictability to keep people on their toes. There is no reflection of human nature. The result - people get greedy and lazy. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Precisely why im against socialism.
And you are right, sadly its an inert thing. Im very careful who i help and under what circumstances just so as i dont get taken advantage of. While it is human nature, i think people seem to have their guard up more in north america if only because people rarely seem to reciprocate your nice action. This is why when i have a good genuine friend who is like does reciprocate, i make sure to keep them around for a long time.
I dont like being closed up and if i have people around me i can trust (which thank god i do) then i can be more my generous self. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Perhaps such radical thinking was too much the norm for Jeff Fillion of Quebec City’s, now condemned CHOI FM radio station. It turns out, that Quebec’s most popular radio show host was also left-Quebec’s most un-liked radio show host. |
He was most unliked not because of his political views but because of his loud language and diffamatory comments. And I think he meant Quebec's city most popular show, Quebec city is as big as Mississauga.
| quote: |
An avid proponent of Ralph Klein and Mike Harris, Fillion regulary pointed to Quebec’s socialist policies and language barrier as Quebecers economic woes vis-à-vis the relative success of Alberta and Ontario. In fact, Fillion, a native Quebecor and francophone, adamantly encouraged young Quebecers to learn English and move to the more-successful English-Canada. It’s no surprise now why none of the politicians in Quebec are criticizing the CRTC’s decision to bar Fillion from the airwaves. In fact, a member of the Parti Quebecois has even been quoted calling the decision well justified on the part of the CRTC. |
Bull, most Quebec's politicians ARE infact criticizing the CRTC, where the hell did this guy get his info from? And Quebec economic woes? huh? Alberta is rich because of high oil prices, thats about it. Ontario hasn't really pulled that much ahead of Quebec when we're talking about economic growth while Harris was in power. So all these regulations didn't hurt that much I guess.
GNP growth in %
_____QUEBEC____ONTARIO
1998__3.6_______4.8
1999__4.8_______6.8
2000__4.2_______5.0
2001__1.2_______1.2
2002__3.9_______3.8
2003__1.6_______1.3
Compounded: 1.2086 1.2506
That's just over 4% of a difference in 6 years between Ontario and the HIGHLY regulated Quebec while the almighty Harris was in power:rolleyes:
But wait a sec, let see the prices indicator (how much things cost based on a 1992 dollar value) based on 2004 Q1 values.
Ontario: 125.8
Quebec: 121.0
Oops... more economic growth in Ontario while things have cost even more.
Not that much of a difference, if any, between Quebec and Ontario after all.
| quote: |
I have no doubt in my mind, that if Jeff Fillion political views had been more of the left-wing variety, that we would be witnessing an explosive response from Quebec’s separatist movement, pointing to the incident as an invasion on freedom of speech and Quebec’s unique culture. But Fillion doesn’t share their vision, and therefore doesn’t earn their sympathy for his quarrels with the federal regulator. They want him gone more-so than the CRTC does.
So for a moment, we witness the silent alliance between the forces of the left and those who would tear this country apart, as the dissenting and threatening voice for personal responsibility is put to sleep, under the now raped version of what we call justice.
In his place, a new more acceptable voice will arise, one who is warmer to the baby-sitter state, who will promote the ideals of destitution to ensure the survival of great Trudeaupian dynasty. |
bla bla bla...
some theories based on some falasies, yes it smells like conservatives bull, again! |
|
|
| malek |
one last thing, the "heavily" regulated Quebec have earned some success.
Lots of investments and incentives from the govt in IT have brought Montreal on the forefront of IT in Canada and around the world. (check Buisness 2.0 latest issue). |
|
|
|
|
