What are you stitching next?

If you attempt to change things for other people, by political or charitable or any other means, you are applying your judgements to other people.

Or you can structure your social system so that extremes of wealth and poverty do not exist, or you can adopt and teach a moral code or religion that supports the idea that life is not simplistically either/or and that pleasure and pain can be found everywhere. And there are probably other options I haven't thought of.

Most observations don't lead to a single conclusion about the best action to be taken in response.

Cheryl P.

Well, yes, there's a difference: discussion can and does often include absolute statements. Absolute statements can provide excellent fodder for discussion.

Cheryl P.

Someone on another group once claimed that women tended to put qualifying terms in a statement in order to appear less aggressive and less certain of themselves. I think I tend to do that. I can see the difference in your two statements, but I don't agree that the second is less of a generalization. In a way, it's either more inaccurate and more condescending - inaccurate unless the speaker actually has heard poor people say that and condescending because 'would argue' implies that the argument is unfounded. Of course, I could continue by saying 'I've heard someone who claimed to be poor say ...' or 'would argue, and I agree, at which point you've arrived back at expressing a personal opinion without the benefit of a research study.

And most of all, the second phrase doesn't express the idea that I believe it's easier to be poor when others are poor. It's shuffling off the belief to some anonymous poor people, and weakening the claim still further by the 'would argue'. What you are not doing when you recommend the use of the second sentence is engaging with the claim itself - is it, or is it not easier to be poor when others around you are also poor (presumably, than it is when others around you are rich). You're just claiming (offering a judgement that...) that the statement shouldn't be made at all.

And that's part of the reason we disagree. It's not just the lack of scientific information or the 'speaking for others' we disagree on; it's whether debate should even be permitted on such topics.

Cheryl

You can observe , you can try to undertand , but you can`t lIke Karen does, Make general assumptions about how and what they feel , And i also don`t agree with your idea of people `getting` used to grieve eralier that others ,, One doesn`t gett used to it , but learns to live on ,,,with it . mirjam

Certainly, you are correct. I was giving a general example and it is based on my own beliefs that attachment is what causes me to suffer more. The more I grasp at objects, or fear losing what I have, the less happy I am. Indeed my statement was not meant to firm up an idea one way or the other. I totally disagree that women who have 10 children are used to losing them, so are happy if two survive. I cannot imagine a life of such monumental grief. Nor do I believe based on their monetary class, they don't experience the same pain of not having because nobody else around them has anything. I hope the last sentence made sense!

There are many reasons why people suffer. Attachment is only one example, so is grasping only one example. However, this is also based on the Buddhist example of definition. I wasn't arguing the point you were making. Not at all.

Victoria

This has been an interesting discussion. Here's my two-cents' worth:

One can learn a lot by studying, observing, reading about other cultures, how people live in other times and places. And you can draw

But human beings are so individual in their responses that *I* can never presume to know how any particular other human being would feel, given the same set of circumstances. I might think I know how I'd feel, or how people in general might react (in terms of anticipating what's "normal" within spectrum of reactions), but I can never apply that to any

The catch is in separating the generalities from the particular. Sensing how people "often" feel has no predictive power for how any particular person will feel.

And when it comes to feelings, "right" and "wrong" aren't necessarily helpful terms.

(I hope that makes sense!)

Sue

I could not see a generalisation of how a mother feels about a lost child. I know my mother never fully recovered her old self after my brother was killed. An aunt likewise. I have three close friends who lost children and know their lives were changed forever.

So that's five people, all mothers (my father was bereft but not in quite the same way my mother was) and I suppose I have not examined paternal reaction so much. Five particulars do not make a generalisation I feel.

Someone mentioned that culture plays into it too, in how one grieves and what is considered acceptable. My mother was unable to talk about it and neither could I until years later. My aunt, conversely likes to remember and talk a great deal about my cousin, since my uncle and myself are the last people who remember her, we hear most of it.

With my friends we include their lost children when appropriate, I believe they feel free to talk about them, I hope so and I notice they gravitate to other parents who lose a child.

I believe it is a thing you can/should understand is terrible to any mother, no matter how wealthy or poor, but you can never fully understand, you can't say 'I understand how you feel' only 'I can't imagine how you feel' unless of course you also are in that terrible boat.

To believe that any mother would capitalize on a lost child is, to me anyway, unspeakable.

In a democracy, when I attempt to change things by political or charitable means, I am inviting other people to join me in that quest for change, which is not at all the same thing as changing things for other people, nor is it applying my judgements to them. It is putting my judgements out there and asking people to take up my cause.

Elizabeth

In my experience, absolute statements usually preclude discussion, although they may generate argument.

Elizabeth

As I said before, I don't find absolute statement conducive to debate. If you're suggesting that I'm saying that poverty is not a topic that should be investigated or debated, then you're sorely misinterpreting me.

Elizabeth

I don't disagree that one can be happy with your life, and poor in the eyes of others. Expectations, values - differ all over the world. I've known miserable poor people trying to alter their lives, miserable poor and hopeless people, poor people who are content it seems, or happy with their lot as they seem to try and improve it. But expectations differ. One of the happiest 16 year olds I knew was my DMIL's housemaid - she was from a poor family (living in a tenement village) but stayed at times in the "big house" . She was thrilled - my DMIL had worked hard to teach her to read, and was arranging a marriage for her with a fellow that had an auto-rickshow (like 3 wheel mail vehicles - used in Asia as taxis). She was happy to have what she could, while the more well-to-do nieces of course had things to grumble about.

Being in India is just fascinating - regardless. I've been to some huge festivals in the south - it's an overwhelming thing for the westerner.

Ellice

You're welcome. Language and distance - don't make for easy, clear discussions all the time.

Ellice

Sure, we make judgements - but the key is acknowledging that it's an opinion

- a judgment - not a fact. And if you're going to indulge in discussion, or argument then as they say on Top Chef - be prepared to "stand behind your dish" as an analogy. When someone is participating in a discussion and merely relies upon a single observation, or a 2nd, 3rd hand observation, well - there's certainly a weakness to that as "argument" . So just say - In My Opinion - based upon limited observation. Or as is often the case euphemistically speaking - pulling it out of their ass - for lack of any real rationale/sustantive evidence.

Your (general you, not specific) is based upon your own prejudices, predispositions, etc. It's certainly great to learn, observe what you can. But painting with broad strokes based on limited experience has begotten much strife in our world, throughout history.

I understand what you're saying, but take issue with the language. I think the phrase

Is a bad choice of language. It's never EASY to be poor - in any relative way. It may be less uncomfortable - because that is only what your primary and secondary social groups know. It may have other emotional consequences

-of wonder or perpetual despair, or OTOH, blissful ignorance of what is being missed. But, to say "easier" - I think that's just not right. Simpler perhaps. If poverty is all around - sure - you're not worried about your sneakers, cell-phone, iPod, etc. But you are at the same time worried about living past childhood, living past age 25 or 30, and how miserable is that life.

ellice

Well said, Sue. You hippie girl, you!

ellice

That merely specifies the tools you are using to try to change things for other people.

They are appropriate tools - I think that using the democratic process to effect change is probably as good a method as there is. Nevertheless, when you engage in it, you personally have made a judgement on what action should be taken, and made an effort to see that that action will be carried out. This applies whether I'm giving a few dollars to someone I think needs it or whether I'm forming a lobby group to get the social assistance rates increased for everyone, or trans fats taken out of fast foods. If I don't think my neighbour needs money or the welfare laws or food laws need reform, I don't participate in that particular campaign. My judgement, my decision, my action.

Cheryl

This has been a very long discussion based on one absolute statement!

Of course, a single counter-example doesn't prove the case.

Cheryl

No, I'm suggesting that you're saying that an individual's conclusions on human behaviour or human nature should not be debated (for various reasons; if I'm remembering the discussion properly, because they are not based on scientific analysis or because they are stated in an unacceptably general or absolute form).

That's what I'm disagreeing with.

Cheryl

It is indeed, as is Africa. I stood by and watched with great amusement while a nun we knew was picked by the federal government to go on a tour in Africa as part of a Canadian delegation. She had grown up in Boston, become a nun, fetched up in Halifax as head of Paediatrics at the Childrens Hospital.

She was in Africa (various parts) for six or so weeks. When she came home she was different. In talking to her she said the main realization she had was how 'wealthy' we are, what luxury we live in, and how poverty has a smell all of it's own. She was devastated to see children who starved, children who picked over garbage looking for anything edible etc etc.

Both David and I were wryly amused to see such culture shock as both of us grew up in and around the Far East for the most part.

Yes, but unless you can get the majority of other people to agree with you, your judgments are not absolute or binding on me, which was my point. And even then, I can be protected from some of your judgements if they would infringe on my rights as a human being.

Elizabeth