On 2/21/2012 11:58 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:53 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 4:15 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without
much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives

Cite?

Appalachia, Native American Indian reservations, Camden, NJ.



I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.

I was addressing that specifically to Plimpton because he doesn't think
there is anything of value to be found in sociology. I do, and as do
most people do.

Sociology studies people, not "society". It studies people, and it does
a bad job of it.

Right but that's only according to you. According to me Economics does a
bad job of predicting economic events and trends.



You'll note there is a presidential Council of Economic Advisors. There
is no corresponding group of sociologists.

He uses them on an ad hoc basis, so what?


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.


If the average American can't have a good life

There is nothing to support the idea the average American can't have a
good life.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the average American doesn't
have a good life though isn't there?


Hawke