It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Author of Viral ‘Poverty’ Essay Apparently Isn’t as Poor As She Led Readers to Believe

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:08 PM

The only way to try to fix it is to move toward a more managed and less free system where everything is managed for you and no one ever risks failure, but then, no one ever gets to truly experience the reward of taking a risk, either. You cannot have one without the other.

I think we need to take it in the other direction and stop rewarding failure.
Humans have thrived on challenge for millenia and suddenly when we start to give free money away to people who don't support themselves it all seems to go to the dogs.

The tribe or the family used to take care of the old, young, infirm or feeble because everybody contributed to the family in some way.

Now, 2/3 rds of the US has a hand out and demands to be supported but only a small percentage of them contribute.

NOBODY in the history of human kind has the ability to "manage" everything for everybody.
Nearly everybody has the ability at some point to manage themselves but most of them just refuse to do so.

The evolution of man has been disrupted by misguided "control" and the correction, when it comes, will be terrible.

We've only our selves to blame, but as long as we continue to support this false evolution and make it worse, the end result will be even more terrible in the long run.

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by Carreau

As I explained before, our computer was recently blown up in an electrical storm, and I could not access my email account (husband didn't have the password anymore, long story) and didn't have my password for ATS, and couldn't get a new one because I couldn't access the email account they have for me... I ended using a phone to create a new account.
Now we have a new computer, much of our files were able to be saved and transfered, and I was able to get back on with my old account- but changing it all on my phone is going to be a pain in the arse, so I am still using whatever account is available on the device I have on hand.

I was starting off with this announcement in each post at first, but nobody gave a crap until now, so i had left off explaining.
I posted once at home on the desktop, and then later while at work, with my phone.
There's your answer.

As you see, I did no games like pretending to talk to myself, or express different opinions, or any such nonsense.

Now back to the topic:

As to whether you need to explain to me what you meant, I will say I don't think so.

But apparently i need to explain what I meant- I made the point about having children because of innate needs for affection, love and family... not sex. Not out of control sexual urges.
I personally didn't enjoy sex that much at that age, but just having someone hold me and be affectionate was better than any orgasm could be.

We are social animals. Having relations with others of our kind, with a clan of some sort, is a fundamental survival mechanism that tends to overide much other concerns. I suspect, though will make no big claims, that this might be a stronger drive in women than in men.

edit on 5-12-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 02:34 AM


Now, 2/3 rds of the US has a hand out and demands to be supported but only a small percentage of them contribute.

This is one of the ironies of the individualism values though- people don't contribute because they learn that no service to their clan is necessary- each man only for himself. So civil duty, as a requisite for membership in a nation, and the rights to it's protection and structure, is abolished in individualism.

Only in the military do we find any acceptable form of service to the collective.

I kinda like the idea that individual freedom should be earned- not a given. You can choose to trade in protection for more freedom, but you can't expect freedom AND protection- walls are walls, whether you call them your protection or limits. -And everyone starts off needing protection when young.

This extreme individualism value system tends to work less well with personalities which are less narcissistic, and more tending towards social behavior.

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:53 AM

It's very simple, if you can't afford children don't have them.

Do you know who can't control their sexual urges? Animals.

A persons emotional need to have a child/ren is (or can be) primal.

We are animals-only civilized & logical, but not perfect.

Many poor people are living in poverty because of the environment in which they grew up, and because their parents had already reached the point where they quit trying and felt their lives were going no-where.. this is the attitude the children grew up in-all they knew. With age comes wisdom, but wisdom comes in many forms. So, with age these children, those who grew up in poor families and whose parents had lost all hope, begin to think that they will have a child and they will give to that child something they felt they never had (or at least never had enough of).

But children are born needing, and the parent has to be the giver. In many poor households, the parent is still emotionally needy and unable to give as a child deserves, therefore passing this cycle onto the child. Only the very strong person can break this cycle, and it takes education. One doesn't need a college education to learn their way, but they do need critical thinking skills, patience, will, confidence, and love. And it would go a long way if someone cared enough to give support to these people, actually to all people. We are all a little needy of something.
edit on 6-12-2013 by RobinB022 because: (no reason given)

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in