The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 10:20:32 PM
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I disagree. There are plenty of poor scientists and starving professionals out in the world.
A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor now, would they?
Q. But what about Brittany Spears, surely she is just a dumb blonde who got lucky. How can you say that she is better than anyone else?
A. Brittany Spears spent years of her life training to become a singer and had the wherewithal to get herself to the top. She made the right connections and had the drive to succeed, unlike you.
Q. What about all of the people who were just born into money. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a poor person.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born into wealth are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's [successful] self
Q. But poor people don't really have the opportunity to make it. When you are born into poverty it's hard to get out of poverty.
A. That excuse may have worked in the middle ages, but these days there are endless opportunities available. One does not even need to go to college to educate themselves in a field. With the internet and free public libraries it is possible to self educate yourself in fields like technology, law, or business. There are countless self-educated techs and businessmen out there. Abraham Lincoln passed the Bar Exam without ever setting a foot into Law School, after all.
It is also possible to start a business these days without a heavy investment in capital. Internet businesses are regularly run out of bedrooms.
Q. But how can poor people get themselves out of poverty when they are holding a full time job?
A. If you are working from 8 to 5 and turn on the TV when you get home then you obviously do not have a drive to succeed. It's your fault that you are poor, clearly.
-
What Tom posts, for the most part, is the harsh reality.
-
Q. What about all of the people who were just born into money. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a poor person.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born into wealth are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self
lolwut
-
Q. What about all of the people who were just born into money. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a poor person.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born into wealth are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self
Q. But poor people don't really have the opportunity to make it. When you are born into poverty it's hard to get out of poverty.
A. That excuse may have worked in the middle ages, but these days there are endless opportunities available. One does not even need to go to college to educate themselves in a field. With the internet and free public libraries it is possible to self educate yourself in fields like technology, law, or business. There are countless self-educated techs and business men out there. Abraham Lincoln passed the Bar Exam without ever setting a foot into Law School, after all.
It is also possible to start a business these days without a heavy investment in capital. Internet businesses are regularly run out of bedrooms.
Smart rich people make smart babies, with the necessary mental tools to be rich
Poor stupid people make poor stupid babies (and usually lots of them). These babies have a disadvantage from day 1, with their poor genetic material and mental abilities (plus the stupid decisions their moms made while pregnant)
Your two points contradict each other.
-
What Tom posts, for the most part, is the harsh reality.
Correct. Unfortunately quality of life is very much related to education and following directly from that money earnt due to work.
However, money can't buy friends or happiness. It can buy you a shitload of hookers who can pretend to be your friends though.
-
Posting in a quality thread.
-
Ahhh, the last disadvantaged group without representation. The stupid.
You cannot refuse someone a job because they are black or old or fat or ginger or gay or disabled or any other section of society.
But the stupid, by virtue of being stupid come in for abuse like this. As the most vunerable section of society, maybe you shouldn't be able to discriminate on intellect or make stupidist threads like this in case people's feelings get hurt. Who will stand up and represent the stupid?
Poor stupid bast*rds. :(
-
Going to a university is very expensive, the top ones sometimes charge as much as $50,000 a year. Fees at the top schools are expensive, I know how much why parents pay and it's quite a lot. If my Dad wasn't very successful in the stock markets the fees would be quite a drain.
Rich people can afford private tutoring, the poor can't.
If your born somewhere without good public schools and your parents have very little money then you are at a major disadvantage. If your parents are really poor, then you might not get education altogether. Or internet usage, so that way of studying is out. If someone in that position is genetically incredibly intelligent and an unbelievably hard worker, then yes, they'll probably be successful. But what about average people. If only 1% have the skills and willpower to do something, then should most people be expected to be able to do it?
There are many smart people who aren't to rich because they didn't have the money to go to college and get a degree and don't have the in the top 0.01% level intelligence and drive to do something like start up a massive business or something.
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Tom, you poor b*****d.
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Tom, you poor b*****d.
Tom's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Tom, you poor b*****d.
Tom's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
And he's like damn right, it's better than yours.
-
Run an experiment; put a bunch of poor people from manufacturing/production or resource-gathering backgrounds on a desert island along with a bunch of CEOs, stockbrokers, professional singers and heirs; see which group survives better.
-
I know quite a few rich people, and also quite a few poor people, Most of the rich ones are tossers, but some are jolly good chaps. Most of the less well off people I know are stereotypical 'yoofs' and a lot of those are alright blokes, but a large section of them are unnecessarily violent chavs. In addition, many of my best friends aren't exactly loaded. In any section of society you get people who are brilliant and then you have those that are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. No group is inherently superior to another.
-
Paris Hilton.
-
Tom equates success with wealth. This is false.
If I am brilliant but have no desire for wealth or power, I will not be rich.
Wealth is power and power is often taken, not given. One must desire it to have it. I do not desire to be rich. Does that make me dumb?
Money is power
Power corrupts
Corruption is a crime
Crime doesn't pay.
-
Yes it' the usual TB boll*cks. It's a generalisation, subject to the definitions of "better" and "smarter". In fact going by the Q&A examples in the post, we must conclude that the original author is "poor" and "bad".
Also, this bit wrong on multiple levels.
Q. What about all of the people who were just born into money. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a poor person.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born into wealth are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self
Human reproduction != cloning. TB need a sex education refresher.
-
Going to a university is very expensive, the top ones sometimes charge as much as $50,000 a year.
Leave to the abroad.
-
Charlile Sheen is better than all of us!
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I disagree. There are plenty of poor scientists and starving professionals out in the world.
A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor now, would they?
Q. But what about Brittany Spears, surely she is just a dumb blonde who got lucky. How can you say that she is better than anyone else?
A. Brittany Spears spent years of her life training to become a singer and had the wherewithal to get herself to the top. She made the right connections and had the drive to succeed, unlike you.
Q. What about all of the people who were just born into money. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a poor person.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born into wealth are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self
Q. But poor people don't really have the opportunity to make it. When you are born into poverty it's hard to get out of poverty.
A. That excuse may have worked in the middle ages, but these days there are endless opportunities available. One does not even need to go to college to educate themselves in a field. With the internet and free public libraries it is possible to self educate yourself in fields like technology, law, or business. There are countless self-educated techs and businessmen out there. Abraham Lincoln passed the Bar Exam without ever setting a foot into Law School, after all.
It is also possible to start a business these days without a heavy investment in capital. Internet businesses are regularly run out of bedrooms.
Q. But how can poor people get themselves out of poverty when they are holding a full time job?
A. If you are working from 8 to 5 and turn on the TV when you get home then you obviously do not have a drive to succeed. It's your fault that you are poor, clearly.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
-
Going to a university is very expensive, the top ones sometimes charge as much as $50,000 a year. Fees at the top schools are expensive, I know how much why parents pay and it's quite a lot. If my Dad wasn't very successful in the stock markets the fees would be quite a drain.
You don't need to go to college to be successful. It is possible to educate yourself through self-study. Many people have done so. There are plenty of resources available to the poor: Public Libraries and Internet.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Woody Allen, Andrew Jackson, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, Lawrence Ellison, and Henry Ford all dropped out of college. Lack of a post-secondary education didn't stop them from becoming successful. They educated themselves through experience and self study.
If your born somewhere without good public schools and your parents have very little money then you are at a major disadvantage. If your parents are really poor, then you might not get education altogether.
Public education at the primary and high school level is free. Being "really poor" does not prevent you from getting a primary and high school education.
Or internet usage, so that way of studying is out.
No it isn't. There isn't a public school or library in the country which does not have internet access.
If someone in that position is genetically incredibly intelligent and an unbelievably hard worker, then yes, they'll probably be successful. But what about average people. If only 1% have the skills and willpower to do something, then should most people be expected to be able to do it?
If poor people don't have the willpower to become unpoor then that's their own fault. They suffer from a lack of ambition and persistence.
Lack of skills is not an excuse. Again, there are public libraries and the internet.
There are many smart people who aren't to rich because they didn't have the money to go to college and get a degree and don't have the in the top 0.01% level intelligence and drive to do something like start up a massive business or something.
Brittany Spears isn't in the top 0.01% level of intelligence. You don't have to be Einstein to become successful. Brittany Spears took a mediocre singing talent and turned it into a multi-million dollar enterprise. She had the cunning and wit to make the right connections, the persistence to push herself forward, and the ability to learn from her failures.
-
It would be comforting to believe that people with bad lives are just living out the result of their own stubborn stupidity and laziness, and that with willpower, hard work, and a little pinch of magic anybody can achieve their dreams. This isn't the case, obviously. People are born with, or have thrust upon them, mental and physical handicaps. People are victim to circumstances that can't be overcome with puny human willpower.
-
Poor is a choice, just like gay!
-
And gays are the devil!
-
Tom equates success with wealth. This is false.
If I am brilliant but have no desire for wealth or power, I will not be rich.
Wealth is power and power is often taken, not given. One must desire it to have it. I do not desire to be rich. Does that make me dumb?
If you choose to be poor, then yes, that makes you dumb. No one chooses to be poor. Poverty is a hard life. Choosing to be poor is akin to choosing to scald yourself with boiling water. Both are dumb choices to make.
It would be comforting to believe that people with bad lives are just living out the result of their own stubborn stupidity and laziness, and that with willpower, hard work, and a little pinch of magic anybody can achieve their dreams. This isn't the case, obviously. People are born with, or have thrust upon them, mental and physical handicaps. People are victim to circumstances that can't be overcome with puny human willpower.
Most people do not have mental or physical handicaps. I'm not arguing that mentally impaired people should become CEO's. The reason most people are poor is due to a lack of ambition and willpower. They choose not to educate themselves, they choose to watch television after work, and they choose to spend their weekends dicking around.
If they spent all of their efforts towards bettering themselves, they could. There is no reason why they couldn't. There is not a lack of resources or money in the economy. Money is fluid and plentiful, and its availability adjusts to fit the size and needs of the economy. There is plenty of opportunity to succeed. There is no legitimate reason why the average poor person can't move up to at least a middle-class lifestyle with enough persistence and hard work.
-
George Carlin, the American Dream
-
This thread is a step too far in silliness, Tom, even for you. Making money is not the sole purpose of life, and there's a lot more to the worth of one's life than what's in their wallet.
-
Tom equates success with wealth. This is false.
If I am brilliant but have no desire for wealth or power, I will not be rich.
Wealth is power and power is often taken, not given. One must desire it to have it. I do not desire to be rich. Does that make me dumb?
If you choose to be poor, then yes, that makes you dumb. No one chooses to be poor. Poverty is a hard life. Choosing to be poor is akin to choosing to scald yourself with boiling water. Both are dumb choices to make.
Not Poor doesn't automatically mean rich.
-
No one chooses to be poor.
Karl Rabede disagrees.
-
ITT: Ghandi was dumb
-
This thread is a step too far in silliness, Tom, even for you. Making money is not the sole purpose of life, and there's a lot more to the worth of one's life than what's in their wallet.
[/quota]
For all tom's hot air and kooky ideas, he actually believes in the American dream. He actually believes that shit. That anybody and everybody can become rich and successful and nobody should drive anything less than a Mercedes, and that man will return to the Moon one da.... Hang on. Britney Spears... It was the record company that was successful, not miss trailer trash. She was swept up by the marketing machine who were looking for a Barby doll and was spat out 5 years later with mental issues. That's the American dream.
-
No, he doesn't believe it. He posts stuff like this for the reaction.
-
Lol, yes. A little hook and a little bait and waits for the rise in the water. ;D
-
*goes for the bait*
Not everyone's goal is to make money. I'd much rather be financially stable and pursue other goals than get rich. Succeeding doesn't mean getting rich, it means constantly pushing yourself towards whatever goals you feel are important. If your goal is to get rich, then more power to you. It seems like you're obsessed with money and I sort of feel sorry for you. For me, all I need to be happy is peace of mind. I think people who are able to transcend things like greed are better than Wall Street traders and CEOs, a lot better. I can honestly tell you that I feel no envy whatsoever when I see a wealthy person.
-
Sojourner Truth, Dwight Eisenhower, Harriet Tubman, Mohandas Gandhi, Mother Theresa...
...the cast of Jersey Shore, George W. Bush.
Clearly rich people are superior.
-
What if some hick wins a lottery, well they will be rich, and still stupid. People who are born into money have a much easier way to become successful, they are spoon fed to (and maybe through) adulthood. Being born into poverty you have to drive to succeed, you have to commit yourself to everything. Look at Steve-O... Not the brightest crayon in the crayola box.
-
I think it's funny that every once in a while Tom starts an abortion of a thread like this, as if trying to shout in the streets "See, guys, I don't really believe anything I say; I'm just a troll!"
And yet so many of you continue to take his ramblings seriously... it's sad...
-
What if some hick wins a lottery, well they will be rich, and still stupid. People who are born into money have a much easier way to become successful, they are spoon fed to (and maybe through) adulthood. Being born into poverty you have to drive to succeed, you have to commit yourself to everything. Look at Steve-O... Not the brightest crayon in the crayola box.
A fool and his money will soon part.... Just look at the USA
-
I think it's funny that every once in a while Tom starts an abortion of a thread like this, as if trying to shout in the streets "See, guys, I don't really believe anything I say; I'm just a troll!"
And yet so many of you continue to take his ramblings seriously... it's sad...
Non-trolling responses don't always mean lack of recognition of a troll OP. I'm simply curious how Tom will choose to uphold his trolling tactics in light of legitimate counterarguments for new subjects.
-
I think it's funny that every once in a while Tom starts an abortion of a thread like this, as if trying to shout in the streets "See, guys, I don't really believe anything I say; I'm just a troll!"
And yet so many of you continue to take his ramblings seriously... it's sad...
Funny but I don't know about sad. I think if I were ever tasked with inventing some employment tests, Tom's threads might be useful. Slightly underhanded but useful, nevertheless.
-
LOL poor people... they love their stupidity
LOL internets, they love their trolls
LOL troll bait, we love you
-
haha you are ritch
Your trolling has no content and thus fails to amuse me.
-
haha you are ritch
Your trolling has no content and thus fails to amuse me.
what ?
-
Your comments cant possibly be implying that this thread passes for subtlety.
-
I think it's funny that every once in a while Tom starts an abortion of a thread like this, as if trying to shout in the streets "See, guys, I don't really believe anything I say; I'm just a troll!"
And yet so many of you continue to take his ramblings seriously... it's sad...
Non-trolling responses don't always mean lack of recognition of a troll OP. I'm simply curious how Tom will choose to uphold his trolling tactics in light of legitimate counterarguments for new subjects.
Well, he usually just repeats the same things, or variations thereof, until he's thoroughly whipped (or gotten bored with it) and abandons the thread.
It's really just no fun arguing with Tom anymore. Or maybe I've become jaded.
This thread is a step too far in silliness, Tom, even for you.
No, it really isn't; that's what's sad about it.
-
TheRoundy is jaded. Singy is pensive. Saddam is irritated. I'm indifferent. Tom is taking notes?
-
Tom is a silly head.
-
If you choose to be poor, then yes, that makes you dumb. No one chooses to be poor.
So monks who have chosen to forsake earthly wealth either don't exist, or are bad people?
-
This thread is a step too far in silliness, Tom, even for you. Making money is not the sole purpose of life, and there's a lot more to the worth of one's life than what's in their wallet.
Yes, money is the most important thing in life. Otherwise people wouldn't be spending 8 or more hours of their day trying to get it. People spend vast amounts of their life in pursuit of money. It is clearly the most important thing to them.
Money buys food, shelter, clothing, medical care, security, education, transportation, fun, entertainment, amongst a host of other things. It allows you to provide for yourself and the people you love. It is the terra and firma of our earthly existence. Obtaining money is absolutely the most important goal to strive for.
Not Poor doesn't automatically mean rich.
It's fine if you don't desire to be super-rich. Just don't pretend that you're fine with being poor.
The naysayers in this thread candidly admit that they wish to be financially stable. That's a starting point. It shows that you do care about money, and that it is important to you. More money means more stability.
But it should not be pretended that one is ever content with the amount of money they have. Money buys security. It gives you funds to draw on during times of emergencies. It gives you more time to raise a family. It gives you a home. It cleans your home. It protects and provides for your family. Every brick you see, every object you touch on a daily basis, and the very streets you walk on was paid for by money. Don't pretend that money is not the focus of life, because it is.
Gandhi
Gandhi had four children who grew up in poverty and lived lives of crime, with numerous run-ins with the law. If Ghandi was not obsessed with his philosophy he could have provided them with a better life.
Harriet Tubman
Harriet Tubman was not content with her poor existence under her oppressors so she led a black revolution to free themselves in an effort to find a better life. They wanted the freedom to make their own money, and live life on their own terms. It was a fight against poverty.
Mother Theresa
Mother Theresa was not poor. She was funded gratuitously by the Vitican and was the headmistress of her school. She was actually quite wealthy and traveled the world helping poor people. She opened homes for the poor, provided aid for the needy, and led a worldwide movement to end poverty.
In 1996 she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries. She was incredibly rich.
-
No, the most important thing in life is love. Without it, money is meaningless.
-
No, the most important thing in life is love. Without it, money is meaningless.
Who told you that? Disney?
I am not in love, and no one is in love with me. But I can still use money to go to the cinema or buy a computer game. As long as other people value my money (and they do), my money has meaning.
-
No, the most important thing in life is love. Without it, money is meaningless.
Who told you that? Disney?
I am not in love, and no one is in love with me. But I can still use money to go to the cinema or buy a computer game. As long as other people value my money (and they do), my money has meaning.
I'm not just talking about romantic love, although that is a large part of it. Basically, loving yourself, loving your family, love for your significant other, and finding something you are passionate about are all more important than money. If you're just going through the motions because you have to to get by, you might as well just die.
-
ooo, this has led nicely on to a question i wanted to see your reactions to - the kids at school have covered this, so lets see what you guys think...
Its called - what is more important, Health, love or money
-
It is the terra and firma of our earthly existence. Obtaining money is absolutely the most important goal to strive for.
No, it isn't money but the things that it buys that are important, otherwise we'd live in cardboard boxes eating roadkill with heaving bank accounts. If you lived in a squatted mansion with a garden providing you with plentiful food, you made your own entertainment, collected rainwater for drink and built a basic solar heater for warm water and heating, then why would you necessarily be concerned about money?
Or to put it in a less hypothetical situation, there are many societies around the world who don't have concepts of private ownership so the idea of money is simply alien.
-
Gandhi had four children who grew up in poverty and lived lives of crime, with numerous run-ins with the law. If Ghandi was not obsessed with his philosophy he could have provided them with a better life.
Please demonstrate how leading socio-philosphical movements promoting nonviolence is a personal shortcoming.
Harriet Tubman was not content with her poor existence under her oppressors so she led a black revolution to free themselves in an effort to find a better life. They wanted the freedom to make their own money, and live life on their own terms. It was a fight against poverty.
Why assume her fight against slavery was financially driven? And if it was, wasn't she worthy of winning, yet didn't succeed? I'm pretty sure she never became rich.
Mother Theresa was not poor. She was funded gratuitously by the Vitican and was the headmistress of her school. She was actually quite wealthy and traveled the world helping poor people. She opened homes for the poor, provided aid for the needy, and led a worldwide movement to end poverty.
In 1996 she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries. She was incredibly rich.
I was under the impression she was a mass philanthropist and didn't keep much for herself. In fact, I recall most of her projects relying on donations in order to sustain those missions. Organizing something large doesn't mean it was self financed.
I didn't see a response to these people:
Sojourner Truth, Dwight Eisenhower
and the cast of Jersey Shore, George W. Bush.
I'd love to hear why immature spoiled and uneducated kids without inhibitions are superior.
-
Related.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43913000
-
Going to a university is very expensive, the top ones sometimes charge as much as $50,000 a year. Fees at the top schools are expensive, I know how much why parents pay and it's quite a lot. If my Dad wasn't very successful in the stock markets the fees would be quite a drain.
You don't need to go to college to be successful. It is possible to educate yourself through self-study. Many people have done so. There are plenty of resources available to the poor: Public Libraries and Internet.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Woody Allen, Andrew Jackson, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, Lawrence Ellison, and Henry Ford all dropped out of college. Lack of a post-secondary education didn't stop them from becoming successful. They educated themselves through experience and self study.
If your born somewhere without good public schools and your parents have very little money then you are at a major disadvantage. If your parents are really poor, then you might not get education altogether.
Public education at the primary and high school level is free. Being "really poor" does not prevent you from getting a primary and high school education.
Or internet usage, so that way of studying is out.
No it isn't. There isn't a public school or library in the country which does not have internet access.
If someone in that position is genetically incredibly intelligent and an unbelievably hard worker, then yes, they'll probably be successful. But what about average people. If only 1% have the skills and willpower to do something, then should most people be expected to be able to do it?
If poor people don't have the willpower to become unpoor then that's their own fault. They suffer from a lack of ambition and persistence.
Lack of skills is not an excuse. Again, there are public libraries and the internet.
There are many smart people who aren't to rich because they didn't have the money to go to college and get a degree and don't have the in the top 0.01% level intelligence and drive to do something like start up a massive business or something.
Brittany Spears isn't in the top 0.01% level of intelligence. You don't have to be Einstein to become successful. Brittany Spears took a mediocre singing talent and turned it into a multi-million dollar enterprise. She had the cunning and wit to make the right connections, the persistence to push herself forward, and the ability to learn from her failures.
I'm also talking about other countries.
Not many have the luck and ideas to start massive companies. Bill gates's parents were quite wealthy, in those days most didn't get access to computers, if his parents were poor, he would never of got the chance he got.
The rich have a huge advantage, if their not doing well then their parents will employ tutors.
Most female singers happen to be very attractive, that's a major cause of their popularity. Most poor people will not be able to afford university, so no degree, therefor no high paying job, and it's difficult to start up a large business.
-
I'm also talking about other countries.
Not many have the luck and ideas to start massive companies. Bill gates's parents were quite wealthy, in those days most didn't get access to computers, if his parents were poor, he would never of got the chance he got.
The rich have a huge advantage, if their not doing well then their parents will employ tutors.
Most female singers happen to be very attractive, that's a major cause of their popularity. Most poor people will not be able to afford university, so no degree, therefor no high paying job, and it's difficult to start up a large business.
With sufficient ambition, citizens of equatorial countries can become successful as well, provided they collect enough zebra pelts.
-
Also, can we dispel this myth about Theresa of Calcutta? She may have opened a good number of hospices but the conditions inside were squalid, she preached that suffering was a virtue whilst flying around the world in private jets. Her preachings about condoms probably did more harm than she did good.
-
Let's take this logic back to Nazi Germany
Q. Are Aryan people better than non Aryan people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are Aryan people smarter than non Aryan people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I disagree. There are plenty of non Aryan scientists and non Aryan professionals out in the world.
A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be in a concentration camp now, would they?
Q. What about all of the people who were just born Aryan. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a non Aryan.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born Aryan are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self
-
Let's take this logic back to Nazi Germany
Q. Are Aryan people better than non Aryan people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are Aryan people smarter than non Aryan people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I disagree. There are plenty of non Aryan scientists and non Aryan professionals out in the world.
A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be in a concentration camp now, would they?
Q. What about all of the people who were just born Aryan. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a non Aryan.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born Aryan are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self
It's a shit analogy.
-
Let's take this logic back to Nazi Germany
Q. Are Aryan people better than non Aryan people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are Aryan people smarter than non Aryan people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I disagree. There are plenty of non Aryan scientists and non Aryan professionals out in the world.
A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be in a concentration camp now, would they?
Q. What about all of the people who were just born Aryan. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a non Aryan.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born Aryan are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self
It's a shit analogy.
In that case, it should be stickied, or put in the faq.
-
I read and interesting article that suggests rich people are older than poor people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14294021
-
Young people are better than old people.
-
Young people are better than old people.
If that is so then newbies on this forum are better than us old pros.
-
Rich people http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2018959/Ashley-Olsen-steps-39k-croc-backpack-The-Row-handbag-line-Barneys.html
-
It's stories like that that make me wonder if they grasp how much $39,000 is to some people.
-
She might understand when someone hacks her emaciated arm off, to get the bag.
-
It's stories like that that make me wonder if they grasp how much $39,000 is to some people.
I honestly doubt that they care.
-
Money only has arbitrary value to those who use and spend it, we are all guilty of giving it a relative value. As children, we are raised to learn the value of money, and distinctions between rich and poor in one place are as meaningful as types of currency internationally. America's minimum wage can seem like vast wealth to people in India and Africa, as is our spending habits. To criticize the spending of 'the rich', means we should also question our own spending from the perspective of the starving homeless.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
I agree.
The smartest people work up enough money to get maximum enjoyment out of their free time.
If the way they get enjoyment is actually making more money then fine, but most people just keep making money because they think it will make them happier, not because it does.
The greatest intellectual triumph is to understand your own wants.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family. You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress. Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family. You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress. Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.
You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house? I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days. Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly
Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family. You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress. Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.
You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house? I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days. Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly
Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.
20 years doesn't sound like a short period of time. Especially when you put it in the context of how many years people actually work.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family. You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress. Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.
You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house? I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days. Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly
Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.
20 years doesn't sound like a short period of time. Especially when you put it in the context of how many years people actually work.
Maybe replace short with unprofitable, same thing really. When you are raising kids you usually arent earning to your full potential.
-
rich people are smarter than poor people, i don't think so
What a winning debate strategy. Keep it up.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family. You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress. Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.
You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house? I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days. Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly
Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.
So the rich are better because you say having money is better than not having money? Your only argument is "you'll have a few more million dollars for sacrificing years of your life" please keep your tautology elsewhere. In fact most studies suggest that earning more than ~100K a year does not increase your happiness significantly compared to earning 100k a year.
-
Money only has arbitrary value to those who use and spend it, we are all guilty of giving it a relative value. As children, we are raised to learn the value of money, and distinctions between rich and poor in one place are as meaningful as types of currency internationally. America's minimum wage can seem like vast wealth to people in India and Africa, as is our spending habits. To criticize the spending of 'the rich', means we should also question our own spending from the perspective of the starving homeless.
Agree. You gasp at her bag, others gasp at your diet.
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family. You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress. Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.
You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house? I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days. Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly
Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.
So the rich are better because you say having money is better than not having money? Your only argument is "you'll have a few more million dollars for sacrificing years of your life" please keep your tautology elsewhere. In fact most studies suggest that earning more than ~100K a year does not increase your happiness significantly compared to earning 100k a year.
You are (deliberately?) missing my point. I was replying to the comment that there is no point working once you have accumulated enough money to support you for life.
I was pointing at the fact that if you have accumulated enough wealth to retire, then you are at the peak of your profession, and can consider working a few more years to set up a legacy for your family (as opposed to the "zero net gain" comment)
-
@opening post
all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.
There are other factors to consider. If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.
But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family. You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress. Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.
You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house? I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days. Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly
Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.
So the rich are better because you say having money is better than not having money? Your only argument is "you'll have a few more million dollars for sacrificing years of your life" please keep your tautology elsewhere. In fact most studies suggest that earning more than ~100K a year does not increase your happiness significantly compared to earning 100k a year.
You are (deliberately?) missing my point. I was replying to the comment that there is no point working once you have accumulated enough money to support you for life.
I was pointing at the fact that if you have accumulated enough wealth to retire, then you are at the peak of your profession, and can consider working a few more years to set up a legacy for your family (as opposed to the "zero net gain" comment)
I wasn't suggesting you stop working when you get enough money to live on. I simply meant only trying to attain a wage that maximizes your happiness. Working generally has a positive effect on health and attitude so working later into your life is not necessarily a negative. Like I said working to maximize happiness.
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Not always, there are plenty of rich people who are complete douchebags, and there are plenty of poor, or middle class people who are some of the nicest people I have ever met.
There are also plenty of rich people who are idiots, except for knowing how to make money (or maybe they just inherited it). I also know a few people who are between poor and middle class, and they're rather smart.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035804/A-life-doesnt-add-The-Cambridge-maths-genius-recluse-living-tinned-mackerel.html
-
Money is corruptible... a new holistic mode of transaction must take its place and will either porogressivley and steadily or, abruptly take hold; in the case people ignore the fact that money don't make the world go round, instead it drives it into the ground ...
there is no debate on this, people need to find ways of filling their lives with meaning and satisfaction which is less than 50% materially derived (this is the ideal) taking at least equal with what you give or less.
But the way things are at the moment it needs to change to more like 30 receive / 70 give ratio. . . the bright side is that part of giving can be to ones self not just others if you know how, things like growing your own veggies going camping and to the beach, playing a musical instrument etc.
Non religiously defined meditation or creative relaxation whatever you wanna call it, is a very easy way to sustain ones sanity without external props once you get the real hang of it, and it doesn't take a 15 years as a monk to achieve sound meditation skills either.
sure it costs fuel to go places for now, but if you can at least feed yourself without having more paid for food in your home than unpaid, then its going to be a lot easier to give more than you receive.
Those who have more money tend to use more resources and then complain that others are too unsuccessful (unhappy) so shouldn't use their money on cheap thrills Alcohol/drugs junk food etc and save but the rich do the same its just they spend on expensive thrills and then feel better happier whilst they are doing what they enjoy. But deep down there is no difference in mental state, when you take away the material distractions people are all the same and we all know that everyone is responsible for this world.
The Native American Quechoa Peoples have a saying that goes: if an individual fails or does something bad, the community all take the blame, recognising that they weren't attentive enough themselves at seeing the signs of alienation that the individual was experiencing or tending to their individualised needs...on the other hand when someone achieves or does something wonderful the whole community celebrates as though they have all achieved...there is no word in their language that denotes "I" only "we" indicating the sense of unity in the comm-unity
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Not always, there are plenty of rich people who are complete douchebags, and there are plenty of poor, or middle class people who are some of the nicest people I have ever met.
There are also plenty of rich people who are idiots, except for knowing how to make money (or maybe they just inherited it). I also know a few people who are between poor and middle class, and they're rather smart.
I said better, not nicer.
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Not always, there are plenty of rich people who are complete douchebags, and there are plenty of poor, or middle class people who are some of the nicest people I have ever met.
There are also plenty of rich people who are idiots, except for knowing how to make money (or maybe they just inherited it). I also know a few people who are between poor and middle class, and they're rather smart.
I said better, not nicer.
What, other than monetary worth, makes one person better than another?
-
What, other than monetary worth, makes one person better than another?
Please see my FAQ in the first post. Rich people are better than poor people because they
- are smarter than poor people
- are more driven than poor people
- can maintain a better quality of life for themselves and their family
If the high school drop out single mother at your local soup kitchen had decided to stay in school and pursue an education then perhaps she wouldn't need to be begging for scraps to feed her family. Other women who had the wherewithal to stay in school, get a degree, and become skilled in a field are smarter and more driven in life. They will succeed where she failed. They are better than her.
-
Please see my FAQ in the first post. Rich people are better than poor people because they
- are smarter than poor people
- are more driven than poor people
- can maintain a better quality of life for themselves and their family
If the high school drop out single mother at your local soup kitchen had decided to stay in school and pursue an education then perhaps she wouldn't need to be begging for scraps to feed her family. Other women who had the wherewithal to get a degree and become skilled in a field are smarter and more driven in life. They will succeed where she failed. They are better than her.
So Paris Hilton is more driven than my friendly, neighborhood hobo?
-
So Paris Hilton is more driven than my friendly, neighborhood hobo?
Correct. Glancing over Paris's Wiki, I see quite a number of accomplishments. However, when I tried to search for "friendly, neighborhood hobo", Wiki wondered if I meant "friendly, neighborhood hbo" but then informed me that that article doesn't even exist. ???
-
Correct. Glancing over Paris's Wiki, I see quite a number of accomplishments. However, when I tried to search for "friendly, neighborhood hobo", Wiki wondered if I meant "friendly, neighborhood hbo" but then informed me that that article doesn't even exist. ???
Or does she have more accomplishments because she has more money to blow on lame tv shows, stupid little drugs, and designer purses holding cocaine? My neighborhood hobo works hard to sell his newspapers and is driven by his daily need for food.
-
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Not always, there are plenty of rich people who are complete douchebags, and there are plenty of poor, or middle class people who are some of the nicest people I have ever met.
There are also plenty of rich people who are idiots, except for knowing how to make money (or maybe they just inherited it). I also know a few people who are between poor and middle class, and they're rather smart.
I said better, not nicer.
That's great.
Did you read the other half of my post?
-
Some of those qs are Just statments and those A's on occasion contain qs