I don't want to hijack a thread, so I started a new one on this subject.

In the mandatory health-care thread, the word 'underachievers' was used in reference to those who cannot afford health-care (I think). The reference ignited my interest in the word.

Here is how my dictionary defines 'underachiever';

underachiever
n : a student who does not perform as well as expected or as well as the IQ indicates [syn: {underperformer}, {nonachiever}]

After reading this definition I wonder if this is the word the poster meant to use. Regardless of whether or not it is, I would like to share some thoughts on underachieving.

If I choose to limit my income because I have other priorities which I have decided more important to me, am I underachieving? If my priorities do not coincide with yours, are either one of us 'wrong'?
Is money the measure of a man/wo-man?

I would like to pose this question:

'If I "underachieve" my your measure and you "underachieve" by my measure, who is actually underachiving?'

I can go change the word to something else if you like. I thought it got my point across. In the context I used the term, an under-achiever is someone who doesn't achieve enough to take care of themselves and must rely on someone else. If you aren't relying on someone else, you aren't under-achieving.

Welcome back to the forums RJ! Missed you.

BTW, here is the entire set of definitions from the Random House dictionary:

1. a student who performs less well in school than would be expected on the basis of abilities indicated by intelligence and aptitude tests, etc.
2. a person or thing that performs below expectations.

American Heritage:

To perform worse or achieve less success than expected.


M-W

a person and especially a student who fails to achieve his or her potential or does not do as well as expected



I'm satisfied I used the term correctly, and it is definitely the word I intended to use. People are expected to take care of their own needs.

There was no offense intended and I hope you know that. I was simply sharing some thoughts and questions on the subject.

Do you have anything to contribute there?

I wonder at what point people are not supplying their own needs. Where do you draw the line there? Can you list what you believe every person should be responsible for with out the assistance of others?

Um, everything.

What should you not be expected to provide for yourself?

Don't many needs differ from person to person?

Is it reasonable to expect a person born with mental defects that incapacitates him or her to supply their own needs?

No, but it is reasonable to expect their parents to supply their needs. Is it unreasonable to expect to not be held responsible for every other asshole on planet earth?

The parents and families of the mentally handicapped have my sympathy, but that doesn't give them a right to my wallet. I have a family to take care of, just like them and everyone else.

Why do you want to fight against all others when you can do it together?
Do you like to be a lone warrior more than being a team player?

Many of them have no family.

What about the person who gets into a car accident, loses her family in the accident and is limited to damages due to laws that favored the insurance industry concerning pain and suffering. Since the damages are limited, is it reasonable for the rest of us to care for them the rest of their lives if some dormant injury surfaces later on?

A case can be made that these people we are talking about do not fit the definition of 'underachievers' as rasczak used it.

So, here's one;

I have decided to forgo some income because I prefer to raise my children myself. I make enough money for the basic essentials.

You, on the other hand decide to let your children be raised through the institutions provided by our tax dollars or even private institutions while you spend the majority of your time making more money. Your kids end up on behavior modification drugs, and have been traumatized by some shoddy outside upbringing that got past you somehow. Your child, later on in life is responsible for my death due to some anger problems. Should you pay for the health care of my family? Should our society be responsible for your child through incarceration and fear of him walking the streets?

Did you underachieve by not being a better parent?

Should our education system be publicly funded when those who benefit from the system only learn to take care of themselves when I helped provide their education?


It all cost money.

Wait, what? Why are we in hypothetical land? What if the sky was green and you children became insane and fired nuclear missles at China? Seriously, what's the point?

For that matter, what's your point? You've lost me.

And for MRiGnS, in a perfect world, we'd all hold hands and sing songs. I'm not sure why not believing in the ability of government to take care of myself or anyone else is "fighting".

But what you're doing is exactly struggling against such a world, a world where people don't care for others but only for themselves.

The world is bigger than you may think, fu. These are all actual stories.

I didn't take offense at all, you were just clarifying the terms and I always appreciate that. You know what I say about clarity...

The point where people are not supplying their own needs is the point where someone else has to supply them for them. That is where you draw the line.

I think a person should be responsible for everything they need without the assistance of others.

rjwood, don't patronize me. What's an actual story? Your post makes no sense, and the follow-up is unhelpfull.

If your point is that there are problems with our insurance laws, well, I agree. If that's your arguement for the government to become the sole-provider of insurance, I disagree with your conclusion. And, what does that have to do with a murder? Like I said, I'm not sure what the hell you're getting at. Maybe it makes sense to you.

MRiGnS, you're making about as much sense as rjwood. Since I don't believe it's a good idea for the government, which is incompetent at best in anything it does, should decide what should be done with the money I earn, that means I'm fighting against some fictional, socialist utopia that will never exist. Umm, yeah, whatever.

The people who aren't team players are those who don't pull their weight. Got a retarded kid? My sympathies, but that's your weight to pull. I didn't see where Fu was talking about "fighting" anyone. You're the one with the hand in his pocket.

This thread is about 'underachievers'. Perhaps you would like to re-read the original post.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against people choosing to donate to a charity that might help you and your disabled kid, but no one should be forced.

There are also rare circumstances where it possibly can't be helped that a person needs the assistance - seek it out, there are people who want to help, just don't demand the government redistribute wealth and take my choice away.

The government is working for you, if you don't tell them what to do, and don't help them to do the right thing they won't.

The government does what you chose.

Can we get back to the thread topic, please..