Robert Hansen (RH) posted Feb 2, 2014 11:11 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9377943) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:57 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > I have worked, largely (not entirely) supporting > myself since the age of 17 or so. Not because I HAD > to, but because I ENJOYED working. (True, I > generally worked only at jobs I enjoyed doing - I was > fortunate that way, too). Anyway, 'working' was the > culture I was bred into, by the examples set by both > my parents (this is contrary to your falsehoods); > > You still don?t get it and it isn?t your fault > because this is how you were raised. I also don?t > think Kirby gets it for the same reasons. The > majority of the world doesn?t work because they enjoy > it. They work because they have to in order to > survive. > It is you who still doesn't get it. As to why you don't get it, I can only suggest that you appear to prefer not to think seriously about the issues you debate.
I do suggest it is entirely possible to help most people actually enjoy most of the work they willingly take up to keep body and soul together (unless they are bonded labour; slaves; and the like - when they wouldn't be doing it willingly - and these are clearly problems of a different nature).
Slavery; bonded labour; 'mind-and-soul' deadening labour for large sections of our population; lack of effective thought on societal issues of serious concern; malnutrition of sizable sections of the population; health care; ineffective educational systems; big-time financial scams (many of which could easily be prevented but aren't); etc, etc, etc... These are issues and problems in society to resolve which (or at least to seek to ameliorate at least slightly) we need to put some serious social thought and considerable societal effort (including financial investment - where to get the needed finances from?).
Our systems are such that we - the stakeholders in society - do not apply effective thought to such issues. When practical means are suggested to help tackle societal issues, we find people like you coming out with fake arguments, lies - anything to prevent yourselves from serious thought and discussion on these issues.
It is true that in all our lives we often do encounter work that we really don't enjoy doing - I claim it is entirely possible to learn to accept much of that willingly (though perhaps not joyously) because of the many other blessings we do obtain from our work in general in many other ways. > > Ground zero for them is nothing. No money, > no house, no car, no anything. The cloths on their > back, as they say. This is why parents have a sense > of urgency in making sure that their children be the > best they can be which usually and often goes beyond > mere encouragement. They don?t have the luxury of > dabbling with work when and where they so desire and > only on their terms. I have sufficient means to give > my son a good start but he will still work, like the > rest of the world, not because he wants to, but > because he has to. And I will raise him to make the > best of that situation. > You wish to give your son "a good start" by PUSHING and GOADING him to learn? Feel free, as I had suggested earlier. > > By the way, I am not faulting you for coming from a > well-to-do family. Or for having the luxury to work > when and where you desired and only on your terms. > You are not 'faulting me' for that? I am happy to learn this - but if you would kindly look through your earlier sneering post(s) you may be able to see something rather different. > > I am only pointing out to you that this is not the > situation with the other 95% of the population. They > must pick a job and soon, from what is available, not > what they wish was available. And on top of that they > must compete with others for that job. This is why it > is more than just encouragement. It is survival. > > Bob Hansen > Thank you for pointing out to me things that I've always known.
So what are the reasons for the many falsehoods you have told (directly or by implication) in your arguments with me? I notice you are STILL evading this issue.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")