Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Equality is mutual inferiority.
  • Subject: Equality is mutual inferiority.
Subject: Equality is mutual inferiority.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

If you're interested in Halo's music, check this out.

Posted by: x Foman123 x
Speaking of chuckles, let's all lol at IonicPaul, who makes friends with bugs to make up for his lack of human contact.

Posted by: Technoxious
But you're also using an anecdotal story...

Backed up by the kindly linked statistical evidence earlier in this thread and plenty of common sense.

  • 01.01.2013 3:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Technoxious
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Vanerrad
Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Vanerrad
And then Steve should in turn, do something for Bob, rather than sit back and make bob do all the work, because twice the work for half the profit means in the end they will both starve.
either one gets all and one gets none and starves, or they both get half and neither starve.
So what does Steve do? Sit there? It is not equality for Bob to do all the work for half the profit, and Steve not to work for half the profit.
What Bob should do is not take all the apples in the first place. Leave an apple there for Steve to pick himself.


There are plenty of other apples. Steve just refuses to pick them because it would require work, so instead he demands the government force Bob to share with him.
There are no apples in Africa. The West has already taken all of them.

  • 01.01.2013 3:27 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: Technoxious

Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Vanerrad
And then Steve should in turn, do something for Bob, rather than sit back and make bob do all the work, because twice the work for half the profit means in the end they will both starve.
either one gets all and one gets none and starves, or they both get half and neither starve.


But then Steve has no incentive to work if he can just rely on someone else providing for him.
sure if he's a greedy good-for-nothing who deliberately does nothing because he doesn't have to. he's taking advantage of bob's generosity when he should be using it to get himself back on his feet.

  • 01.01.2013 3:30 AM PDT

I don't think you know the definition of inferior.

  • 01.01.2013 3:31 AM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
I guess we should just let poor people suffer then. Who cares; I'm rich![/quote]

Of course. It's their fault they're suffering.[/quote]Oh yeah, because they're not trying hard enough, right?[/quote]

Of course. Steve Jobs earned his place. Abraham Lincoln earned his place.
[/quote]"Set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."
A diagram

No money = no investment = no development = no money.
Tell that to my Uncle who was literally living in a trailer home all the way up to the age of 20 and was making over fifteen million dollars a year in his prime.
Did he have outside influence on that, however? Say, he found someone who hired him and payed him more money than he was getting beforehand?

If that first thing had not happened, then he would have been forever contained in that cycle.
No, he didn't know anyone. He just jumped into the homebuilding market as a lowly home cleaner.

  • 01.01.2013 3:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
I guess we should just let poor people suffer then. Who cares; I'm rich![/quote]

Of course. It's their fault they're suffering.[/quote]Oh yeah, because they're not trying hard enough, right?[/quote]

Of course. Steve Jobs earned his place. Abraham Lincoln earned his place.
[/quote]"Set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."
A diagram

No money = no investment = no development = no money.
Tell that to my Uncle who was literally living in a trailer home all the way up to the age of 20 and was making over fifteen million dollars a year in his prime.
Did he have outside influence on that, however? Say, he found someone who hired him and payed him more money than he was getting beforehand?

If that first thing had not happened, then he would have been forever contained in that cycle.
No, he didn't know anyone. He just jumped into the homebuilding market as a lowly home cleaner.
That is still an outside influence.

In third world countries, you can't just leave your farm and find a job.

  • 01.01.2013 3:33 AM PDT


Posted by: IonicPaul
Posted by: Technoxious
But you're also using an anecdotal story...

Backed up by the kindly linked statistical evidence earlier in this thread and plenty of common sense.


I'm not talking about earlier linked information, I'm talking about you complaining about someone using an anecdote right after your own long anecdote...

  • 01.01.2013 3:33 AM PDT


Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Technoxious

Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Vanerrad
And then Steve should in turn, do something for Bob, rather than sit back and make bob do all the work, because twice the work for half the profit means in the end they will both starve.
either one gets all and one gets none and starves, or they both get half and neither starve.


But then Steve has no incentive to work if he can just rely on someone else providing for him.
sure if he's a greedy good-for-nothing who deliberately does nothing because he doesn't have to. he's taking advantage of bob's generosity when he should be using it to get himself back on his feet.


Everyone is greedy, unless there's something wrong with them.

  • 01.01.2013 3:34 AM PDT

"Thoughts are the shadows of feelings; always darker, emptier, and simpler."

I love how this thread relies on generalizations like "Mr. Richman Moneybags" who doesn't give a -blam!- about anyone else or "Mr. Deadbeat Homeless Man" who has no desire to find a job. Of course, it's human nature to put people into groups. However, if you look at each person in an individual sense, then our society (America) is where it should be.

  • 01.01.2013 3:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Technoxious
Posted by: IonicPaul
Posted by: Technoxious
But you're also using an anecdotal story...

Backed up by the kindly linked statistical evidence earlier in this thread and plenty of common sense.


I'm not talking about earlier linked information, I'm talking about you complaining about someone using an anecdote right after your own long anecdote...
He was complaining about how someone used an anecdote to represent every case, to which he countered by using his own anecdote which proved that previous anecdote was not representative of all cases.

  • 01.01.2013 3:35 AM PDT


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
I guess we should just let poor people suffer then. Who cares; I'm rich![/quote]

Of course. It's their fault they're suffering.[/quote]Oh yeah, because they're not trying hard enough, right?[/quote]

Of course. Steve Jobs earned his place. Abraham Lincoln earned his place.
[/quote]"Set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."
A diagram

No money = no investment = no development = no money.
Tell that to my Uncle who was literally living in a trailer home all the way up to the age of 20 and was making over fifteen million dollars a year in his prime.
Did he have outside influence on that, however? Say, he found someone who hired him and payed him more money than he was getting beforehand?

If that first thing had not happened, then he would have been forever contained in that cycle.
No, he didn't know anyone. He just jumped into the homebuilding market as a lowly home cleaner.
That is still an outside influence.

In third world countries, you can't just leave your farm and find a job.


If that's how you define outside influence, then all of society is an outside influence.

  • 01.01.2013 3:37 AM PDT

It's really stupid when the "fortunate" share with the "unfortunate" and the unfortunate don't use their gifts wisely.

If a man goes out and fishes for himself, he can feed himself.
If a man goes out and asks for fish, he can only get what the fisherman can spare.

The one that does not fish, does not use the kindness of the the one that does to go out and get his own fish, instead he sits back and makes the other one do all the work.

  • 01.01.2013 3:37 AM PDT

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

If you're interested in Halo's music, check this out.

Posted by: x Foman123 x
Speaking of chuckles, let's all lol at IonicPaul, who makes friends with bugs to make up for his lack of human contact.

Posted by: Technoxious
I'm not talking about earlier linked information, I'm talking about you complaining about someone using an anecdote right after your own long anecdote...

*sigh*

The point was that it's just as easy for me to whip out an anecdote describing the exact opposite of what he's insinuating in his anecdote (anyone can do the right thing and not only get out of poverty, but become rich). The other point was that it's pretty emotionally affecting to have people insulting and delegitimizing the suffering of good, hard-working people.

Edit: Garshne ninja'd my own point

[Edited on 01.01.2013 3:38 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 3:37 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.

Posted by: Technoxious
Everyone is greedy, unless there's something wrong with them.
that is what's wrong with everyone.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 3:38 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 3:38 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: Vanerrad
It's really stupid when the "fortunate" share with the "unfortunate" and the unfortunate don't use their gifts wisely.

If a man goes out and fishes for himself, he can feed himself.
If a man goes out and asks for fish, he can only get what the fisherman can spare.

The one that does not fish, does not use the kindness of the the one that does to go out and get his own fish, instead he sits back and makes the other one do all the work.
you're assuming he could have fished himself.
what if he was bed-ridden and couldn't fish?

  • 01.01.2013 3:40 AM PDT

Posted by: CultMiester4000
um no equality is equality; that's the point.
there are no inferior and superior, that is wrong.
Yeah; they're equal in their inferiority. Equality would bring down those in their superior position to the level of the inferior --> mutual inferiority. There's no way to bring everyone up to the superior position, though.

  • 01.01.2013 3:43 AM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
I guess we should just let poor people suffer then. Who cares; I'm rich![/quote]

Of course. It's their fault they're suffering.[/quote]Oh yeah, because they're not trying hard enough, right?[/quote]

Of course. Steve Jobs earned his place. Abraham Lincoln earned his place.
[/quote]"Set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."
A diagram

No money = no investment = no development = no money.[/quote] Tell that to my Uncle who was literally living in a trailer home all the way up to the age of 20 and was making over fifteen million dollars a year in his prime.[/quote]Did he have outside influence on that, however? Say, he found someone who hired him and payed him more money than he was getting beforehand?

If that first thing had not happened, then he would have been forever contained in that cycle.
No, he didn't know anyone. He just jumped into the homebuilding market as a lowly home cleaner.
That is still an outside influence.

In third world countries, you can't just leave your farm and find a job.
You were DIRECTLY discussing Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, I fail to see where third world countries come into play.

  • 01.01.2013 3:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Technoxious
Posted by: Garshne
That is still an outside influence.

In third world countries, you can't just leave your farm and find a job.


If that's how you define outside influence, then all of society is an outside influence.
And the poor in third-world countries are completely excluded from society by the greedy in those countries.

"The poor are dirty, inferior, disgusting. They don't even deserve jobs. I would never hire one to clean my house. I don't want to think about the slums. I want to forget they aren't there because I don't want to spare $10 to give someone a job."

The communities of the poor are not in any way part of the society where you can just go out and ask for jobs. In the urban areas, they'll be refused entry. Most of the time there just aren't enough jobs for so many people.

In the rural areas, you can't just leave your subsistence farm and walk for three days to find some job with no guarantee of hiring you. You have no money for food for that trip, and if you leave your farm for one day your crops will fail and then you won't have enough money to keep your farm going next year, which means you won't have any money at all next year, which means no food.

The farmers only get enough money to get themselves enough to survive and to keep their farm going. That's it. If they want to save money, it means taking money away from their food or their farm. Without food they starve next week, without the farm they starve next year.

  • 01.01.2013 3:45 AM PDT


Posted by: IonicPaul
Posted by: Technoxious
I'm not talking about earlier linked information, I'm talking about you complaining about someone using an anecdote right after your own long anecdote...

*sigh*

The point was that it's just as easy for me to whip out an anecdote describing the exact opposite of what he's insinuating in his anecdote (anyone can do the right thing and not only get out of poverty, but become rich). The other point was that it's pretty emotionally affecting to have people insulting and delegitimizing the suffering of good, hard-working people.

Edit: Garshne ninja'd my own point


Actually you're both dumb. You both provided two completely irrelevant anecdotes that had nothing to do with the cycle of poverty.

  • 01.01.2013 3:45 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: I 5ee You
Posted by: CultMiester4000
um no equality is equality; that's the point.
there are no inferior and superior, that is wrong.
Yeah; they're equal in their inferiority. Equality would bring down those in their superior position to the level of the inferior --> mutual inferiority. There's no way to bring everyone up to the superior position, though.
but if all the superiors were brought down to the inferior's level, there wouldn't be any superiors and, therefore, no inferiors either. mutual inferiority is wrong by definition. if all the parties are the same, none of them can be inferior.

  • 01.01.2013 3:45 AM PDT


Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Vanerrad
It's really stupid when the "fortunate" share with the "unfortunate" and the unfortunate don't use their gifts wisely.

If a man goes out and fishes for himself, he can feed himself.
If a man goes out and asks for fish, he can only get what the fisherman can spare.

The one that does not fish, does not use the kindness of the the one that does to go out and get his own fish, instead he sits back and makes the other one do all the work.
you're assuming he could have fished himself.
what if he was bed-ridden and couldn't fish?
That is indeed unfortunate, but say the one that fishes can barely sustain himself? if he gives his food to the one that can't fish, than he will starve and die, and then the one that can't will starve and die.

They both die and nothing good comes of it. Because the the one that does not fish always needs/wants more. It will become to hard for the one that does fish to support them both.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 3:47 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 3:46 AM PDT

"Thoughts are the shadows of feelings; always darker, emptier, and simpler."

Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Vanerrad
It's really stupid when the "fortunate" share with the "unfortunate" and the unfortunate don't use their gifts wisely.

If a man goes out and fishes for himself, he can feed himself.
If a man goes out and asks for fish, he can only get what the fisherman can spare.

The one that does not fish, does not use the kindness of the the one that does to go out and get his own fish, instead he sits back and makes the other one do all the work.
you're assuming he could have fished himself.
what if he was bed-ridden and couldn't fish?

Then he gets a job as a telemarketer and pays the fisherman for something to eat.

  • 01.01.2013 3:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Garshne
I guess we should just let poor people suffer then. Who cares; I'm rich![/quote]

Of course. It's their fault they're suffering.[/quote]Oh yeah, because they're not trying hard enough, right?[/quote]

Of course. Steve Jobs earned his place. Abraham Lincoln earned his place.
[/quote]"Set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."
A diagram

No money = no investment = no development = no money.[/quote] Tell that to my Uncle who was literally living in a trailer home all the way up to the age of 20 and was making over fifteen million dollars a year in his prime.[/quote]Did he have outside influence on that, however? Say, he found someone who hired him and payed him more money than he was getting beforehand?

If that first thing had not happened, then he would have been forever contained in that cycle.
No, he didn't know anyone. He just jumped into the homebuilding market as a lowly home cleaner.
That is still an outside influence.

In third world countries, you can't just leave your farm and find a job.
You were DIRECTLY discussing Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, I fail to see where third world countries come into play.


Posted by: Astinous
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Astinous
Posted by: Garshne
I guess we should just let poor people suffer then. Who cares; I'm rich!


Of course. It's their fault they're suffering.
Oh yeah, because they're not trying hard enough, right?


Of course. Steve Jobs earned his place. Abraham Lincoln earned his place.

  • 01.01.2013 3:47 AM PDT


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Technoxious
Posted by: Garshne
That is still an outside influence.

In third world countries, you can't just leave your farm and find a job.


If that's how you define outside influence, then all of society is an outside influence.
And the poor in third-world countries are completely excluded from society by the greedy in those countries.

"The poor are dirty, inferior, disgusting. They don't even deserve jobs. I would never hire one to clean my house. I don't want to think about the slums. I want to forget they aren't there because I don't want to spare $10 to give someone a job."

The communities of the poor are not in any way part of the society where you can just go out and ask for jobs. In the urban areas, they'll be refused entry. Most of the time there just aren't enough jobs for so many people.

In the rural areas, you can't just leave your subsistence farm and walk for three days to find some job with no guarantee of hiring you. You have no money for food for that trip, and if you leave your farm for one day your crops will fail and then you won't have enough money to keep your farm going next year, which means you won't have any money at all next year, which means no food.

The farmers only get enough money to get themselves enough to survive and to keep their farm going. That's it. If they want to save money, it means taking money away from their food or their farm. Without food they starve next week, without the farm they starve next year.


First of all, who are you quoting exactly?

Second of all, we're not talking about the poor in third world countries, or at least I'm not, and it didn't seem like anyone else was either besides maybe you.

  • 01.01.2013 3:47 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Technoxious
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Technoxious
Posted by: Garshne
That is still an outside influence.

In third world countries, you can't just leave your farm and find a job.


If that's how you define outside influence, then all of society is an outside influence.
And the poor in third-world countries are completely excluded from society by the greedy in those countries.

"The poor are dirty, inferior, disgusting. They don't even deserve jobs. I would never hire one to clean my house. I don't want to think about the slums. I want to forget they aren't there because I don't want to spare $10 to give someone a job."

The communities of the poor are not in any way part of the society where you can just go out and ask for jobs. In the urban areas, they'll be refused entry. Most of the time there just aren't enough jobs for so many people.

In the rural areas, you can't just leave your subsistence farm and walk for three days to find some job with no guarantee of hiring you. You have no money for food for that trip, and if you leave your farm for one day your crops will fail and then you won't have enough money to keep your farm going next year, which means you won't have any money at all next year, which means no food.

The farmers only get enough money to get themselves enough to survive and to keep their farm going. That's it. If they want to save money, it means taking money away from their food or their farm. Without food they starve next week, without the farm they starve next year.


First of all, who are you quoting exactly?

Second of all, we're not talking about the poor in third world countries, or at least I'm not, and it didn't seem like anyone else was either besides maybe you.
I'm paraphrasing a documentary on the slums in India, where they interviewed some of the rich people in Mumbai about their views on the slums.

And the OP mentioned "African people", didn't he?

  • 01.01.2013 3:50 AM PDT