Rich people are better than poor people

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. 

*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.

Quote from: Edgeworth on July 27, 2011, 07:37:15 PM

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.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 27, 2011, 07:14:03 PM

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.

Quote from: Andrew on July 28, 2011, 03:01:11 AM

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

Quote from: 11cookeaw1

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.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1

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.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1

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.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1

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.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1

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

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 10:20:32 PM

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.