Your IDEAL job.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
georgiapeachmd said:
Isn't avoiding an HIV+ patient unethical, and denying them care harmful?
i dont see why its a big deal, they can easily go to the next doc and give him their business. i wouldnt have a problem with denying them care or posting a no HIV sign outside, its a safety issue. just like bball players who didnt like playing with magic johnson. and i dont think seeing HIV patients is inevitable if you choose the right location. it would be very unlikely anyway
 
anon-y-mouse said:
can't you do that in business?

your answer is radiology

You may have been being facetious, but just FYI, the radiologists I know work solidly long days, at least 5 days per week, with at least monthly night call. Honestly, you aren't going to find too many 40 hour or less work weeks in medicine.
The specialty famous for lifestyle friendly schedule is derm. Most of your patients don't die (of those ailments). Most don't have late night emergencies. And most are never permanently curable, so you have lots of repeat business.
 
I don't have a problem with treating them- I just would not actively seek them out. Does that make sense? Besides it's illegal to deny care to someone based on their HIV status. Yes, denying them care would be unethical, but there is always the option to refer them out to a higher level of care or a more experienced provider.

Large, metropolitan hospital with significant underserved patient population.

I would like something similar, except without the large underserved population. I want to work in a nice part of town with well insured patients. I am not going to bust my butt for 8 years of school then several years of residency and fellowship just for the "privilege" of working at some inner city, money strapped hospital with poor maintainence and a minimally appropriate standard of care where I am likely to get mugged walking to my car.
 
seriously, though, I'd love to be a surgeon, I think, with a work schedule varying between 40-60 hours. I'd prefer a big hospital in a large city with a varied population. I'd like a heterogeneous patient population. I don't mind working a lot, although a light week is nice occasionally. Pretty much any MD salary would be good for me - I'm living comfortably on $12K a year right now 😛
 
Praetorian said:
I would like something similar, except without the large underserved population. I want to work in a nice part of town with well insured patients. I am not going to bust my butt for 8 years of school then several years of residency and fellowship just for the "privilege" of working at some inner city, money strapped hospital with poor maintainence and a minimally appropriate standard of care where I am likely to get mugged walking to my car.

I don't think a hospital with "poor maintainence and a minimally appropriate standard of care" and a large underserved population are necessarily synonymous. And working with such a population is neither a privilege nor a disadvantage.
 
I don't see how you would say those two are not closely linked. Granted there are nice hospitals that handle poor people, but I don't know many people with the means to chose that will pick a crappy hospital that delivers poor care. Anyhow, I was basically saying that I don't plan on setting foot (after residency) in a hospital in the inner city or poorer rural areas.

How is it not a disadvantage to take care of people who can't pay you? They are underserved for a reason.
 
Praetorian said:
I don't see how you would say those two are not closely linked. Granted there are nice hospitals that handle poor people, but I don't know many people with the means to chose that will pick a crappy hospital that delivers poor care. Anyhow, I was basically saying that I don't plan on setting foot (after residency) in a hospital in the inner city or poorer rural areas.

How is it not a disadvantage to take care of people who can't pay you? They are underserved for a reason.
👍
 
businessguy said:
It's Saturday... too early to do anything interesting so I thought I start a new thread.

What would your IDEAL job be as a doctor. What area would you go into? How many hours and days would you work per week? How much much do you want to make? Are you willing to sacrifice money for the lifestyle?

I personally am still looking for that ideal area. I want to work 9-5, 4 days a week, and make 200K. 😀 If you know of something that may suit my needs, let me know... :laugh:

It would be nice to get a cushy job as a consultant. 😀
 
TheProwler said:
seriously, though, I'd love to be a surgeon, I think, with a work schedule varying between 40-60 hours. I'd prefer a big hospital in a large city with a varied population. I'd like a heterogeneous patient population. I don't mind working a lot, although a light week is nice occasionally. Pretty much any MD salary would be good for me - I'm living comfortably on $12K a year right now 😛

What big city surgeons do you know who work 40 hours per week? (It probably only seems like that because they are already at work for 4-5 hours before most people start their day.)
 
Law2Doc said:
What big city surgeons do you know who work 40 hours per week? (It probably only seems like that because they are already at work for 4-5 hours before most people start their day.)

All the surgeons I know, work about 60 hours a week and are on call a lot. These are guys who are 50-60 years old too, not young fellows.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
DoctorPardi said:
All the surgeons I know, work about 60 hours a week and are on call a lot. These are guys who are 50-60 years old too, not young fellows.

Awesome avatar :laugh:

I've heard about the nightmarish hours surgeons have... but like I said in an earlier post, mids are the worst in my opinion, so anything other than that is cool with me. And as long as I have enough cash to take my family on trips as my way of saying sorry I've got to work so much, we're kosher.
 
Praetorian said:
I don't see how you would say those two are not closely linked. Granted there are nice hospitals that handle poor people, but I don't know many people with the means to chose that will pick a crappy hospital that delivers poor care. Anyhow, I was basically saying that I don't plan on setting foot (after residency) in a hospital in the inner city or poorer rural areas.

How is it not a disadvantage to take care of people who can't pay you? They are underserved for a reason.

It's not a disadvantage if you feel a calling or need to serve those who are less fortuante than you. I mean this as a voluntary, part time service. Of course, everyone wants to be compensated for their work (I'm no exception) but many physicians also sometimes treat the underserved (i.e. those who can't pay you) free of charge, not expecting or wanting payment. That's why I said it was neither a privilege or disadvantage, it's just something some doctors want to do, and others don't.
 
safeflower said:
many physicians also sometimes treat the underserved (i.e. those who can't pay you) free of charge, not expecting or wanting payment.

Good point!

After living out here in California where they basically bend you every which way for insurance, most people can't afford it. And those that can't usually go on the state program called MediCal or DentiCal, which is not widely accepted.

I agree with helping them, not everyone has two or three hundred to spend on the docs when they're living paycheck to paycheck. It's not thier fault.
 
At this point, I'm thinking:

research + clinical practice (realistically, with research taking up most of my time) in infectious disease (something of global significance, like TB or Malaria), in an academic setting (hospital? school of public health?) with an underserved patient population... with some time each year to work in developing nations, maybe tie some fieldwork in with the research.
 
Law2Doc said:
What big city surgeons do you know who work 40 hours per week? (It probably only seems like that because they are already at work for 4-5 hours before most people start their day.)
I'm pretty sure the point of this thread was to dream a little, hence the title.
 
Shredder said:
i dont see why its a big deal, they can easily go to the next doc and give him their business. i wouldnt have a problem with denying them care or posting a no HIV sign outside, its a safety issue. just like bball players who didnt like playing with magic johnson. and i dont think seeing HIV patients is inevitable if you choose the right location. it would be very unlikely anyway

If you're worried about the risk of HIV, you should avoid a career in medicine altogether. Have you been exposed to medical practice at all? I practice as a PA in a relatively small city. HIV+ patients are everywhere!!! I really think that you would see them no matter the size, location or specialty of practice. Certainly, you would see more in your high-risk populations, but HIV it not particular about which patients it infects.

Oh, and Praetorian...I understand what you're saying.
 
wow.

me? my ideal would be this: start off working as a GP in the ER of one of those "inner city, money strapped hospitals with poor maintainence and a minimally appropriate standard of care" in an area with a large uninsured population for 60-80 hours a week, ideally night shifts, on-call is fine, too, and live off of that income, whatever it is. then, start a clinic on the side, with grant funding for running needs, staffed mostly with volunteers, that offers free primary care to uninsured, working poor, homeless, etc., specifically focusing on injection drug users, sex workers, HIV and HCV positive patients, etc. all adults. no kids. please, lord, no kids!

once the clinic can exist without me, i would leave the clinic and hospital, spend a few years with Doctors Without Borders until it burns me out, at which point i'll find a little town somewhere in the pacific northwest, new england, or the desert that needs a doctor and become the quaint country doctor for the rest of my days.

ahhh...that sounds so beautiful...

_______
ok, here it goes:

http://mdapplicants.com/viewprofile.php?id=4760
 
georgiapeachmd said:
If you're worried about the risk of HIV, you should avoid a career in medicine altogether. Have you been exposed to medical practice at all? I practice as a PA in a relatively small city. HIV+ patients are everywhere!!! I really think that you would see them no matter the size, location or specialty of practice. Certainly, you would see more in your high-risk populations, but HIV it not particular about which patients it infects.
in georgia its understandable that there would be a lot, thats why i dont plan on heading to such places. hiv patients are not everywhere, and the virus is documented as affecting certain crowds particularly more so than others. its not the common cold. ive been exposed to medicine the way it was meant to be practiced. when i toured dartmouth it was beautiful, no hiv, drug users or babies, or gunshot victims. a portrait of the good old days of america. people have come to act like hiv is a regular part of life, something any neighbor, friend or relative could contract at any time...how sad

if youre not worried about the risk of hiv you should reassess matters
 
Shredder said:
people have come to act like hiv is a regular part of life, something any neighbor, friend or relative could contract at any time...how sad

if youre not worried about the risk of hiv you should reassess matters


um, hiv is a regular part of life, and to find a hole to hide in is just like being the ostrich with it's head in the sand. and to assume that some places or people just don't have hiv is more dangerous than only working with hiv patients, because you are more likely to let your guard down, and that's when exposures happen. ANYONE can have hiv. anyone. you must always take the precautions necessary to protect yourself with every patient. i think it's you who needs to be more worried about the risks...and take a glance over the routes of transmission.

i've been on a PEP/PER (post exposure prophylaxis, post exposure response) team for a few years at the clinic where i volunteer. hiv is not your only worry when exposed. in fact, depending on the actual exposure, it might not even be the biggest worry. HCV is huge, and much easier to transmit as is HBV (though you should be innoculated). there's also the risk of tetanus from deep punctures, not to mention the risk of some std's.

anyway...i suppose that just means more clients who really need care will be left for me!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
My dream would be to work as a travel writer, but since my writing is really really painfully boring (think research paper) medicine will have to do for now 😉
 
noonday said:
um, hiv is a regular part of life, and to find a hole to hide in is just like being the ostrich with it's head in the sand.

I hate doing this....but ostriches can't/don't put their heads in the sand :meanie:


Other than that, you had a really good point. 😀 😀
 
Shredder said:
in georgia its understandable that there would be a lot, thats why i dont plan on heading to such places. hiv patients are not everywhere, and the virus is documented as affecting certain crowds particularly more so than others. its not the common cold. ive been exposed to medicine the way it was meant to be practiced. when i toured dartmouth it was beautiful, no hiv, drug users or babies, or gunshot victims. a portrait of the good old days of america. people have come to act like hiv is a regular part of life, something any neighbor, friend or relative could contract at any time...how sad

if youre not worried about the risk of hiv you should reassess matters

In Georgia there are a lot...whats that suppose to mean...uh oh, the south has a lot of black people and poor people=HIV?...so now you are going to avoid black people and poor people too...you are going to be a great doctor in a quaint new england town---unfortunately those people aren't the ones who need a great doctor 🙄
 
safeflower said:
It's not a disadvantage if you feel a calling or need to serve those who are less fortuante than you. I mean this as a voluntary, part time service. Of course, everyone wants to be compensated for their work (I'm no exception) but many physicians also sometimes treat the underserved (i.e. those who can't pay you) free of charge, not expecting or wanting payment. That's why I said it was neither a privilege or disadvantage, it's just something some doctors want to do, and others don't.
Well, I will do pro bono care for the occasional patient- if they truly can't pay (most people can pay in some way shape or form- but I don't think focusing on the underserved is a good idea. Keep in mind that a lot of people who are underserved are poor and without insurance for a reason. If a person is honestly busting their butt, trying to provide for their family and be a good productive member of society then by all means I will help them out. If the person in question is a fat, lazy slob or someone who is suckling off the government teat that is being funded with my tax money, then they can get in line like everyone else. Its these kinds of patients (what I have had described to me as "underserved" by various groups and physicians) that make me not want to serve them as readily as the rest of you. I think many of you are looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, especially those with no practical experience (shadowing does not constitute practical experience).
 
In Georgia there are a lot...whats that suppose to mean...uh oh, the south has a lot of black people and poor people=HIV?...so now you are going to avoid black people and poor people too...you are going to be a great doctor in a quaint new england town---unfortunately those people aren't the ones who need a great doctor



Oh please...don't make this into a racial issue. He was pointing out that Georgia has a high rate of HIV infection- which is in keeping with statistics I have seen.

BTW People everywhere need doctors, not just the poor.
 
golftrippy said:
In Georgia there are a lot...whats that suppose to mean...uh oh, the south has a lot of black people and poor people=HIV?...so now you are going to avoid black people and poor people too...you are going to be a great doctor in a quaint new england town---unfortunately those people aren't the ones who need a great doctor 🙄

Amen!!
 
Shredder said:
... ive been exposed to medicine the way it was meant to be practiced. when i toured dartmouth it was beautiful, no hiv, drug users or babies, or gunshot victims. a portrait of the good old days of america. people have come to act like hiv is a regular part of life, something any neighbor, friend or relative could contract at any time...how sad

if youre not worried about the risk of hiv you should reassess matters


Medicine the way it was meant to be practiced?! And what way is that? Avoiding one of the world's major public health problems? Clearly, you don't have to work with ininsured patients or seek out HIV-positive patients or anything else like that, but to imply that serving them is not medicine as it is meant to be practiced is crazy. The practice of medicine is about prreventing and treating disease (even diseases like HIV); it's not sanitary and it's not without risks.

Being aware of the risk of HIV and being afraid of it are two different things. I'm cognizant of the fact that it is risky to work with HIV and other infectious agents, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that those diseases are affecting millions. I, personally, look forward to working with those patients and practicing medicine as I'm meant to practice it.

And by the way, any neighbor, family member, or friend CAN contract HIV. I'm surprised you think that your social circle is invincible.
 
Shredder said:
i dont see why its a big deal, they can easily go to the next doc and give him their business. i wouldnt have a problem with denying them care or posting a no HIV sign outside, its a safety issue. just like bball players who didnt like playing with magic johnson. and i dont think seeing HIV patients is inevitable if you choose the right location. it would be very unlikely anyway

Correct me if I'm wrong but there have been enough advances in preventive measures for HIV to assure that you will be relatively safe. If that's true, you can't deny someone care based on the premise that you can get infected. Doing what you say, I believe, is a path to a lawsuit. :scared:
 
Shredder said:
in georgia its understandable that there would be a lot, thats why i dont plan on heading to such places. hiv patients are not everywhere, and the virus is documented as affecting certain crowds particularly more so than others. its not the common cold. ive been exposed to medicine the way it was meant to be practiced. when i toured dartmouth it was beautiful, no hiv, drug users or babies, or gunshot victims. a portrait of the good old days of america. people have come to act like hiv is a regular part of life, something any neighbor, friend or relative could contract at any time...how sad

if youre not worried about the risk of hiv you should reassess matters
and....."ive been exposed to medicine the way it was meant to be practiced. when i toured dartmouth it was beautiful, no hiv, drug users or babies, or gunshot victims."

hiv is a fact of life and yes ANYONE can contract it at any time. and please rememeber that not everyone living with hiv or aids contracted the virus because of their own bad judgement. many were born with it. and some get it from their cheating spouses. i think your ideas about who contracts hiv and who doesnt are completely off. perhaps if you spent some time in a hiv shelter or (if that idea is too revulting to you) read some literature about it online you'd actually know this.

anyway, thank god there are individuals out there who are compassionate and brave enough to treat them. putting a sign up that says 'no hiv patients here' is ugly, immature, and irresponsible. you should be ashamed you even thought of that idea. i can respect your desire (and other ppl's desire) to only treat weathly individuals who have not contracted hiv or any other fatal diseases and i certainly dont think that makes you an evil person but your ideas about medicine dont seem to be based on reality to me.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Praetorian said:
Well, I will do pro bono care for the occasional patient- if they truly can't pay (most people can pay in some way shape or form- but I don't think focusing on the underserved is a good idea. Keep in mind that a lot of people who are underserved are poor and without insurance for a reason. If a person is honestly busting their butt, trying to provide for their family and be a good productive member of society then by all means I will help them out. If the person in question is a fat, lazy slob or someone who is suckling off the government teat that is being funded with my tax money, then they can get in line like everyone else. Its these kinds of patients (what I have had described to me as "underserved" by various groups and physicians) that make me not want to serve them as readily as the rest of you. I think many of you are looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, especially those with no practical experience (shadowing does not constitute practical experience).
um... your concern as a medical doctor is to treat those who need care. if you're going to screen your patients to see which ones IN YOUR OPINION deserve help and attention then you are better off not helping any of the underserved. who deserves to make that judgement anyway? it certainly isnt you and its not me. those types of problems are too complex to be simplified. even in the case of the fat lazy slob you speak of.

the last thing the underserved population needs is more ppl looking down at them and judging them. thats why some dont want to bother to seek help in the first place. many of us are willing to give any underserved individual care without judgement. if ppl dont focus on the underserved who is going to guarantee that they have access to the care that they need?
 
golftrippy said:
In Georgia there are a lot...whats that suppose to mean...uh oh, the south has a lot of black people and poor people=HIV?...so now you are going to avoid black people and poor people too...you are going to be a great doctor in a quaint new england town---unfortunately those people aren't the ones who need a great doctor 🙄
Your assumptions are huge and ridiculous.


As for Shredder's comments, I don't see why you all are reacting the way you are. He is free to have is own opinions and preferences. I don't see any problem working with HIV patients, because there are any number of diseases out there that are more deadly (fewer treatments and faster acting) and more contagious. I don't have many preferences as to the type of patients I see - I'd just prefer that they all be pleasant to deal with (ha! that'll never happen).
 
TheProwler said:
Your assumptions are huge and ridiculous.


As for Shredder's comments, I don't see why you all are reacting the way you are. He is free to have is own opinions and preferences. I don't see any problem working with HIV patients, because there are any number of diseases out there that are more deadly (fewer treatments and faster acting) and more contagious. I don't have many preferences as to the type of patients I see - I'd just prefer that they all be pleasant to deal with (ha! that'll never happen).

Actually, his assumption that Georgia has a ton of HIV patients compared to the rest of the country, and that he can just avoid treating HIV patients based on where he's practicing is huge and ridiculous.

I'm really not trying to start a war over this...and I know that I am a little out of line and over the top...and its not really aimed at Shredder, I just get a little angry and mostly disappointed when I hear some of these attitudes from my future colleagues...sorry.
 
its funny how med students start to sing a different tune a few years into med school. as for the racial comment--blacks have a higher rate of hiv infection. so do gays. these are facts.
golftrippy said:
a quaint new england town---unfortunately those people aren't the ones who need a great doctor 🙄
o rly?

for the most part hiv is a preventable disease, all. there is no getting around that. thats why hiv campaigns focus on prevention. the poor are in fact less in need of docs bc efforts are more likely to be futile--the poor have a way of disobeying orders and not minding their health, or safety even. great docs going to serve the poor is a misallocation of resources, truly.
 
Shredder said:
for the most part hiv is a preventable disease, all. there is no getting around that. thats why hiv campaigns focus on prevention. the poor are in fact less in need of docs bc efforts are more likely to be futile--the poor have a way of disobeying orders and not minding their health, or safety even. great docs going to serve the poor is a misallocation of resources, truly.

😡

it is true that HIV is usually preventable. HOWEVER...we all do things that are bad for us in one way or another...should i be denied antacids because my heartburn is caused by the fatty meal i ate?

and as for the gross, abhorable generalization that somehow the poor are somehow unable/unwilling to act to their own benefit is so social darwinian it's painful to read. i work with these people, and have for years. they're not "disobeying orders" (first off, the idea that somehow doctors are parental figures who should be allowed to give orders, and not partners in developing wellness strategies that work for the individual patient...sheesh), and not purposely not minding their health, it's often a by product of circumstances. they are not dumb, nor not open to change, nor willfully self desructive for the most part. and most are not lazy with a sense of arrogant entitlement. most are embarassed to be where they are, and want things to be different. and it's people like you, who lable and judge and dismiss them that only exacerbate the problem, because the first thing that they need is a sense of empowerment.

shredder...have you ever been even close to homeless? do you even know how hard it is to stay alive, no matter do what you "should" in that situation? have you ever had chronic pain, or narcolepsy, that doctors dismiss because they think you're just a lazy drug seeking bum, so you have to find a way to self-medicate? have had such an awful environment at home that you run away from the abuse only to find yourself abused by johns and your pimp? not be able to afford decent food that's good for you, so you're stuck eating ramen and the like so that you get a vitamin deficiency? i know people well who've been all of those and worse. i've personally been unemployed (but working...i had a master's degree and couldn't find a job in my field, i worked whatever i could to make some money, but it wasn't enough), "medically indigent" and less than a week from having to live in my car while having gallstones. i've been so poor that i ended up malnourished and with early stages of vitamin B definicency. and it sucks. and i know that any of us (well, any of us without trust funds or rich daddys) could end up there. so when i care for that heroin user or that sex worker, i don't see them as "other" to me. or you. just people without the gifts of the tools and circumstances to which we've been priviledged.

ok, ok, sorry, off of soapbox now. 😡 😡 😡 😡

and, that said, meth use is rampant in rural areas, so don't count on a lack of tweekers and injectors and thus, hiv poz people in the rural areas....
 
Back on topic:
I will be a forensic psychiatrist.
This means doing a lot of research on the mentally ill in the criminal justice system.
I intend on finding ways of treating some of the most horrific criminals-- to either treat the illness that causes the behavior or to identify tendencies and signals that indicate future criminal behavior.
One thing is certain: our system is far too under-funded to treat the mentally ill so a majority of them end up in our justice system-- with no hope of being treated because they're not being treated as mentally ill.

Serial killers? Yes. Child abusers? Yes. Pathological criminal behavior? Yes.
It all is fascinating to me. I cannot wait for the opportunity to help make this society a better place!!!
As for money-- it matters, and I'd love to make as much as possible-- I'm aiming for no less than $500K a year-- but that's obviously not a starting wage. We'll see. After that degree is in my hot little hands (well, they're not THAT little after all), anyone will be hard pressed to stop me.
BWAHAHAHAHA.
 
MissMary said:
um... your concern as a medical doctor is to treat those who need care. if you're going to screen your patients to see which ones IN YOUR OPINION deserve help and attention then you are better off not helping any of the underserved. who deserves to make that judgement anyway? it certainly isnt you and its not me. those types of problems are too complex to be simplified. even in the case of the fat lazy slob you speak of.

the last thing the underserved population needs is more ppl looking down at them and judging them. thats why some dont want to bother to seek help in the first place. many of us are willing to give any underserved individual care without judgement. if ppl dont focus on the underserved who is going to guarantee that they have access to the care that they need?

I don't know who will do that and I frankly don't care. Oh wait, you said you want to....problem solved I guess. As you pointed out, it will be my job to render care- it's someone else's responsibility to figure out how they will pay for the related expenses.

Seeing as how I openly said I don't plan to treat the "underserved" (I hate the expression BTW; can't we just say "poor" for crying out loud?), then your admonition to not treat any underserved is a little redundant. I just figured that helping a few who really need it (regardless of who they are poor or otherwise) would be a far more meaningful way to do it than providing primary care to the unwashed masses.

Once you get out of medical school and have bills to pay, I'm sure your admirable goal to heal the poor and sick will be quickly trimmed back to something more applicable to a productive business (which means turning a profit regardless of whatever stance you take on medicine).
 
I am not touching that discussion!

Me: Geriatrician. Frickin love old people.
 
noonday said:
it is true that HIV is usually preventable. HOWEVER...we all do things that are bad for us in one way or another...should i be denied antacids because my heartburn is caused by the fatty meal i ate?
thats a good point. it would be a tragedy if any of us got hiv, certain death. however none of us will get it bc were careful and mindful of consequences. big macs cant really be equated to hiv. cigarettes is one step further but its still hard to die from those unless you throw caution to the wind. hiv is like russian roulette though.

i have a cynical view of the poor and lowly. i think the vast majority of them are just lazy and leaches to society. there are a select few who are exceptions but you cant make generalizations based on exceptions. so there are few instances that are worthy of the benefit of the doubt. the more concessions we give to the lowly, the more incentive they have to maintain that state. you know my parents were immigrants and once faced the prospect of welfare long before my birth. they turned it down and through hard work things ended up nicely for my family and me. the gutter isnt nearly the vacuum/black hole its portrayed to be. so no i havent really faced much hardship, but my origins arent exactly aristocratic.
 
so no i havent really faced much hardship, but my origins arent exactly aristocratic.

Actually I'm from a dirt poor family in a rural setting. So it's not like I'm looking down upon the poor from some ivory tower.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Shredder said:
thats a good point. it would be a tragedy if any of us got hiv, certain death. however none of us will get it bc were careful and mindful of consequences. big macs cant really be equated to hiv. cigarettes is one step further but its still hard to die from those unless you throw caution to the wind. hiv is like russian roulette though.

i have a cynical view of the poor and lowly. i think the vast majority of them are just lazy and leaches to society. there are a select few who are exceptions but you cant make generalizations based on exceptions. so there are few instances that are worthy of the benefit of the doubt. the more concessions we give to the lowly, the more incentive they have to maintain that state. you know my parents were immigrants and once faced the prospect of welfare long before my birth. they turned it down and through hard work things ended up nicely for my family and me. the gutter isnt nearly the vacuum/black hole its portrayed to be. so no i havent really faced much hardship, but my origins arent exactly aristocratic.

Well your opinion of the poor didn't really need to be stated...we get it 🙄 ...and I think its time to move on. As a student of anthropology and sociology with significant experience in impoverished communities I could tell you that you are completely wrong and explain to you why but what good would that really do anyway. Really, nothing is going to change your ignorant and warped view of reality...so I just feel sorry for you
 
So my experience in an impoverished community (my hometown) that many of the poorer residents have done something (or their lack of doing something, namely working hard) had lead to their position in life, is just bulls**t? I've seen it time and again in the small towns through out the Midwest where I have worked and lived. Your place in life depends less on your origins, or help from others, but entirely upon how hard your are willing to work. Premeds are a perfect example- if we don't get into medical school, we honestly have no one to blame but themselves. The same goes for those that find themselves in a position that hinders their access to various things need to look inward for the source of their misfortune. That is all I am saying- I've busted my ass to get where I am, and I expect others to do the same. I don't feel sorry for those who choose to do otherwise.
 
impoverished people suck. 👎
 
I wouldn't say they suck. A lot of them are very nice people.....it's just that I have no pity for them for screwing themselves over.
 
Praetorian said:
So my experience in an impoverished community (my hometown) that many of the poorer residents have done something (or their lack of doing something, namely working hard) had lead to their position in life, is just bulls**t? I've seen it time and again in the small towns through out the Midwest where I have worked and lived. Your place in life depends less on your origins, or help from others, but entirely upon how hard your are willing to work. Premeds are a perfect example- if we don't get into medical school, we honestly have no one to blame but themselves. The same goes for those that find themselves in a position that hinders their access to various things need to look inward for the source of their misfortune. That is all I am saying- I've busted my ass to get where I am, and I expect others to do the same. I don't feel sorry for those who choose to do otherwise.

I'm not saying those who don't work and prosper shouldn't be congratulated, I'm saying that those who don't aren't usually lazy and unmotivated. I'm saying you shouldn't judge others because you don't understand their situation. In reality, most people's place in life depends ENTIRELY on their origins. If you've read up on the subject, you would know that while attainable, for most, the American Dream is a myth, and there is a glass ceiling on most all American citizens...and congrats Praetorian if you and your family did it. This glass ceiling isn't just the obvious--laws, racism, classism...its the culture. The reality of human life is that we are almost completely shaped by our cultural situation, and this has been proven numerous times. If you grow up in a family where education is not stressed, then why would you consider it significant? This is just one example. The opposite example...how many times did you run into completely unmotivated students who were at a good college, barely getting by, just because they were well-off and were encouraged that "college is what you do after high school" since birth. These people are lazy and unmotivated, but will still gain the "trappings" of success in America. The truth is we can't understand each others realities...hell I can't even understand how you guys have these attitudes and we share almost all the same attributes on paper...so why try and why judge. Give other people the benefit of the doubt, because you could have just as easily been born into their situation.
 
Granted glass ceilings exist. But I do think they can be broken with sufficient effort, even with that said, I am only saying that people can find work to provide the basic needs for their families: food, shelter, clothing, insurance, transportation. I mean have you ever seen the health plan road maintainence crews have? But still we see loads of people who are "unable to find work".....how about they get off the unemployment check mailing list and start patching interstates to earn their keep? Just a thought.....

By the way, my family is still poor. I'm the only one who has pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
 
golftrippy said:
I'm not saying those who don't work and prosper shouldn't be congratulated, I'm saying that those who don't aren't usually lazy and unmotivated. I'm saying you shouldn't judge others because you don't understand their situation. In reality, most people's place in life depends ENTIRELY on their origins. If you've read up on the subject, you would know that while attainable, for most, the American Dream is a myth, and there is a glass ceiling on most all American citizens...and congrats Praetorian if you and your family did it. This glass ceiling isn't just the obvious--laws, racism, classism...its the culture. The reality of human life is that we are almost completely shaped by our cultural situation, and this has been proven numerous times. If you grow up in a family where education is not stressed, then why would you consider it significant? This is just one example. The opposite example...how many times did you run into completely unmotivated students who were at a good college, barely getting by, just because they were well-off and were encouraged that "college is what you do after high school" since birth. These people are lazy and unmotivated, but will still gain the "trappings" of success in America. The truth is we can't understand each others realities...hell I can't even understand how you guys have these attitudes and we share almost all the same attributes on paper...so why try and why judge. Give other people the benefit of the doubt, because you could have just as easily been born into their situation.

Good post. There is a glass ceiling in this country. Sure the American Dream is possible. A poor guy becomes a doctor, or even President of the USA ( Clinton), but this is the exception not the rule. People high up do not want the "have nots" taking over positions of power. 30 years ago this was not true but today it is. If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008 that will mean that two families will have been in the white house for 20 years.

I would like to be a surgeon, do not really care too much about the hours, hopefully make over 250K, drive a BMW, vacation house etc.
 
golftrippy said:
student of anthropology and sociology
doesnt hold much water considering that modern anthro and socio are awash in left wing dogma (+faculty and students) proclaiming that nobody bears any personal responsibility for successes or failures, and that society, or someone or the other, is to blame for everything. everything follows external loci of control of course

even if the poor arent lazy and unmotivated, the lack of those two traits doesnt count for much when english still needs to be learned and drugs and violence spurned. not to mention irresponsible promiscuity which ties into the hiv bit. but again, its societys fault im sure

the more we baby the lowly the longer they will take to buckle down and get to work. its all about tough love
 
Shredder said:
doesnt hold much water considering that modern anthro and socio are awash in left wing dogma (+faculty and students) proclaiming that nobody bears any personal responsibility for successes or failures, and that society, or someone or the other, is to blame for everything. everything follows external loci of control of course

you're right...academia is a giant leftist conspiracy 😉 ...you and your personal experience make you a much greater expert on the human condition...
 
golftrippy said:
you're right...academia is a giant leftist conspiracy 😉 ...you and your personal experience make you a much greater expert on the human condition...
its not really a conspiracy, modern academia is overtly a left wing brainwashing factory, as well as an asylum for those who choose to stay. personal experience is subject to sampling bias--both yours and mine; common sense isnt
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Top Bottom