>Psychologist Abraham Maslow believed that safety ranked second only to food and shelter as a basic human need. Someone who has food and a roof over their head today, but doesn’t know whether they will tomorrow, should be considered poor.
I find this premise extremely unsatisfying and non-obvious to say the least. Life is dangerous. There's no such thing as safety. Everyone's going to die, and most of us won't expect it's rapidity.
I am in no way poor, but if I lost my job and couldn't pay my bills, I'd be in trouble very quickly. That's no one's fault but my own and doesn't deserve action from anyone but me.
Sounds like if you lost your job you could pay the bills. You're running into the difference between what is - for you - a hypothetical and what is for others a reality.
> That's no one's fault but my own
Bu-bu-bu-bullshit! This is completely discounting the role the entire rest of civilization has in producing the context within which you make your choices.
Here's an example: I met a homeless old couple at an encampment once, and they were there because they'd chosen to move out of the Section 8 housing they were in because the building was becoming a drug den. They chose to be homeless but I do not think it is reasonable to say it's "their fault".
I think what you're actually saying is "I don't want any responsibility for other people" which is fine, but realize a) there's a difference between that and someone's situation being their fault, c) a moral judgement by you is inappropriate, and b) "If Everybody Did" then we wouldn't have civilization. Some people need to, do, and should take responsibility for others, and you should disparage neither the needy nor the charitable on those grounds alone.
(Note: If everybody takes all responsibility for everyone else, you get tyranny instead. Balance and diversity!)
Is this really necessary, or the best way to make your point? It really takes away from an otherwise decent post.
Its obviously more complex than that, but I've met a few who don't help much in the former's depiction.
I'm not actually figuring out a non-loaded term to use instead; the next best that I'm finding are the phrases "head so far up your own ass" and "check your privilege", both of which have their own issues.
AFAIK, when people are willfully ignorant of the plight of others, you call bullshit on their crap. Like replying to ad hominem attacks with fallacy ref memes. Anything else is engaging with the trolls. I'll take suggestions, tho.
Otherwise, thanks!
Do you at least agree that there are very dangerous places to live, such as war zones? Most people live in safer places than that and it’s a good thing we do.
From there, I’d argue that there’s a spectrum. Living in a war zone or next to a live volcano is extremely dangerous and stressful. But there are other ways to live that are only slightly dangerous, like living somewhere with gang violence, or no health care system, or with no savings. And some people live in areas with very low crime and violence, have good access to health care, and have ample savings or other safety nets. If you’re lucky and/or wise enough to live like that, you’re safer and better off.
The only difference in countries with strong Labor laws is that it can't happen arbitrarily and a certain amount of runway is paid out.