You misunderstand (or possibly i misspoke) - I don't mean that a poor person is there because they're horrible. I mean that there is a prevailing attitude that it is inherently BETTER to be poor than rich. There's no inherent good or evil in either, but more and more I am told that being rich is evil and being poor is good. This attitude encourages complacency from the poor, which is absolute horrible if you ever want the poor to STOP being poor.thaluikhain said:I don't see anything inherently wrong with being poor. There will always be large numbers of people on the bottom of society, and it's not always their fault that they are there.HalfTangible said:But the absolute worst thing our culture has right now is a sense that failure is acceptable. That it's okay to be poor, to be a horrible person, to be a violent sociopath because of your home life, or you had a bad day, or because bringing up your bad behavior somehow makes the other person 'racist' or something dumb like that. Just... no, okay? Can we go back to thinking that failure is a BAD thing that you should do everything in your power to fix?
Sociopathy is a mental disorder, and likewise not the person's fault.
There's no reason to assume that someone must be a horrible person just because they are poor. That, at least, is a choice, and something we can most definitely condemn them for, should we get round to defining what a horrible person is.
'Violent' sociopath, I said. As in 'this man is a mass murdering psycho, but he's still a good kid'. No. He's not. Doesn't matter if it's "not his fault" - he killed anyway.