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

OP is a troll, and at that a very good one. He's argued his point in a civilised manner and rustled a lot of jimmies.

10/10

  • 01.01.2013 3:50 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
Actually you're both dumb. You both provided two completely irrelevant anecdotes that had nothing to do with the cycle of poverty.

>Loses argument
>Changes point of contention and calls everyone dumb

  • 01.01.2013 3:52 AM PDT


Posted by: Garshne

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


Dude we are way off topic from the OP. The OP didn't really make any sense anyway.

  • 01.01.2013 3:52 AM PDT


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

>Loses argument
>Changes point of contention and calls everyone dumb


I re-read the conversation to clarify and then I realized you both had posted completely irrelevant anecdotes, which I missed the first time I read your post. I'm sorry I missed your stupidity the first time, please accept my apology.

  • 01.01.2013 3:53 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

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


Dude we are way off topic from the OP. The OP didn't really make any sense anyway.
Well if we're talking first world countries, it's a different thing.

If there are no jobs/you are unable to work, the government should pay you a sum of money. In the case of no jobs, it would be minimum wage while you are looking (and proving that you are looking) for a job, which ends once you find a job. In the case of being unable to work, it would be disability welfare. If you have an injury preventing you from working, there's nothing you can do to get money.

  • 01.01.2013 3:55 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 re-read the conversation to clarify and then I realized you both had posted completely irrelevant anecdotes, which I missed the first time I read your post. I'm sorry I missed your stupidity the first time, please accept my apology.

Firstly: You're as arrogant as a fifteen year old and about as good as arguing as one.

Secondly: How is referencing a personal connection in response to someone else using an anecdote about the cycle of poverty (a subject discussed in the OP) irrelevant to the cycle of poverty?

Thirdly: Even if I were to grant you the dubious claim of it being irrelevant to the cycle of poverty, I was responding to an "irrelevant" anecdote. By definition, it's a relevant response to the person I quoted.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 4:52 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 3:59 AM PDT

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

Posted by: Vanerrad

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.
the one that fishes tells the other this and that sadly he cannot give hm any fish, but he knows a guy who manages to catch a lot of fish; plenty for the both of them and himself in fact. unfortunately he doesn't give any away but he could always try asking.

  • 01.01.2013 4:02 AM PDT

Allons-y!

I can comprehend each word individually, but all of them in such a large conglomeration makes it.. Difficult.

  • 01.01.2013 4:04 AM PDT


Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Vanerrad

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.
the one that fishes tells the other this and that sadly he cannot give hm any fish, but he knows a guy who manages to catch a lot of fish; plenty for the both of them and himself in fact. unfortunately he doesn't give any away but he could always try asking.
Then why the -blam!-! does the one that does not fish do that! instead he try's to force fish from the one can't afford to lose any. Or try to make himself useful in another manner so that it is easier for the one that fishes to support them both?

[Edited on 01.01.2013 4:08 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 4:06 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: Vanerrad
Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Vanerrad
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.
the one that fishes tells the other this and that sadly he cannot give hm any fish, but he knows a guy who manages to catch a lot of fish; plenty for the both of them and himself in fact. unfortunately he doesn't give any away but he could always try asking.
Then why the -blam!-! does the one that does not fish do that! instead he try's to force fish from the one can't afford to lose any.
He's not psychic.

  • 01.01.2013 4:08 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Vanerrad
Then why the -blam!-! does the one that does not fish do that! instead he try's to force fish from the one can't afford to lose any.
no i didn't say that. this is getting confusing; let's name them.
one who can fish - Bob
one who can't - Steve.

bob tells steve about the guy; steve previously didn't know of the guy so went to Bob as he was the man with the most fish who he knew.

  • 01.01.2013 4:10 AM PDT


Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Vanerrad
Then why the -blam!-! does the one that does not fish do that! instead he try's to force fish from the one can't afford to lose any.
no i didn't say that. this is getting confusing; let's name them.
one who can fish - Bob
one who can't - Steve.

bob tells steve about the guy; steve previously didn't know of the guy so went to Bob as he was the man with the most fish who he knew.
What if Bob does not know of such a guy? Or if this guy that Bob knows won't share. Why is it Bob's fault? why Can't Steve do anything to help Bob in return?

[Edited on 01.01.2013 4:14 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 4:11 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: Vanerrad
Why can't he do anything on his own? It's cause of the one that fishes, so he should not blame the one that fishes.
If there aren't any apples/fish/jobs/money to spare, how is he meant to get any?

  • 01.01.2013 4:13 AM PDT


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Vanerrad
Why can't he do anything on his own? It's cause of the one that fishes, so he should not blame the one that fishes.
If there aren't any apples/fish/jobs/money to spare, how is he meant to get any?
By stealing? Is it wrong for Bob to protect what he earns? If Steve can steal, why can't he work?

  • 01.01.2013 4:16 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Vanerrad

Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Vanerrad
Then why the -blam!-! does the one that does not fish do that! instead he try's to force fish from the one can't afford to lose any.
no i didn't say that. this is getting confusing; let's name them.
one who can fish - Bob
one who can't - Steve.

bob tells steve about the guy; steve previously didn't know of the guy so went to Bob as he was the man with the most fish who he knew.
What if Bob does not know of such a guy? Or if this guy that Bob knows won't share. Why is it Bob's fault? why Can't Steve do anything to help Bob in return?
it isn't bob's fault; he's only taking what he needs.
the guy who bob knows has been greedy and taken way more than he needs, depriving others of things they need so he can have luxury.
this is wrong and he should give up some of his luxury so that others can get what they need. once everyone has what they need, then luxuries can be had.

  • 01.01.2013 4:18 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: Vanerrad
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Vanerrad
Why can't he do anything on his own? It's cause of the one that fishes, so he should not blame the one that fishes.
If there aren't any apples/fish/jobs/money to spare, how is he meant to get any?
By stealing? Is it wrong for Bob to protect what he earns? If Steve can steal, why can't he work?
Because there are no jobs! It costs employers money to employ someone, you know. And in the current economic crisis, no one is going to give up money.

When all people do is take more apples than they need, what is the poor man supposed to do when there aren't any apples left?

And taxes going to welfare IS NOT STEALING.

  • 01.01.2013 4:22 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.[/quote] No, he didn't know anyone. He just jumped into the homebuilding market as a lowly home cleaner.[/quote]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.


That doesn't remotely come close to isolating only third world countries as the topic of discussion.

  • 01.01.2013 4:29 AM PDT


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Vanerrad
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Vanerrad
Why can't he do anything on his own? It's cause of the one that fishes, so he should not blame the one that fishes.
If there aren't any apples/fish/jobs/money to spare, how is he meant to get any?
By stealing? Is it wrong for Bob to protect what he earns? If Steve can steal, why can't he work?
Because there are no jobs! It costs employers money to employ someone, you know. And in the current economic crisis, no one is going to give up money.

When all people do is take more apples than they need, what is the poor man supposed to do when there aren't any apples left?

And taxes going to welfare IS NOT STEALING.
What if taxes going to welfare, forces everyone to go into welfare, because no one can afford the taxes, then no one is paying taxes and welfare stops.

  • 01.01.2013 4:31 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.

We've moved on from that a page ago. Bro, do you even read posts?

@colby

[Edited on 01.01.2013 4:32 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 4:32 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: Vanerrad
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Vanerrad
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Vanerrad
Why can't he do anything on his own? It's cause of the one that fishes, so he should not blame the one that fishes.
If there aren't any apples/fish/jobs/money to spare, how is he meant to get any?
By stealing? Is it wrong for Bob to protect what he earns? If Steve can steal, why can't he work?
Because there are no jobs! It costs employers money to employ someone, you know. And in the current economic crisis, no one is going to give up money.

When all people do is take more apples than they need, what is the poor man supposed to do when there aren't any apples left?

And taxes going to welfare IS NOT STEALING.
What if taxes going to welfare, forces everyone to go into welfare, because no one can afford the taxes, then no one is paying taxes and welfare stops.
Those who can't afford taxes don't pay taxes.

And billionaires can't afford to pay taxes? What a -blam!- joke.

Especially when many billionaires don't even pay taxes at all, when they're supposed to. And people like that are morally right, as opposed to people trying to find work but can't?

  • 01.01.2013 4:35 AM PDT


Posted by: IonicPaul
Posted by: Technoxious
I re-read the conversation to clarify and then I realized you both had posted completely irrelevant anecdotes, which I missed the first time I read your post. I'm sorry I missed your stupidity the first time, please accept my apology.

Firstly: You're as arrogant than a fifteen year old and about as good as arguing as one.

Secondly: How is referencing a personal connection in response to someone else using an anecdote about the cycle of poverty (a subject discussed in the OP) irrelevant to the cycle of poverty?

Thirdly: Even if I were to grant you the dubious claim of it being irrelevant to the cycle of poverty, I was responding to an "irrelevant" anecdote. By definition, it's a relevant response to the person I quoted.


Firstly, check your grammar before posting. Also, I wouldn't really say we're arguing, and if we are, I'm not sure what about. You just said something stupid imo in an online forum and I decided to call you out on it because I'm bored I guess or something.

Secondly, colby's anecdote was not at all about the cycle of poverty, as it did not occur after 3 generations. And your story also was not relevant to the aforementioned phenomenon.

Thirdly, I hopefully don't have to explain why you're wrong here as you already stated what you were trying to point out with that post.

  • 01.01.2013 4:39 AM PDT

I went to a mcdonald's and applied. got hired, got work experience, then went to target, got hired because of my experience, and if I keep it up I can use this experience to go higher.

There are jobs, sometimes you just have to be willing to work in low places, just so you can have experience. It was not easy, but I did it. I did it without taking from others, I even hand out money here and there to help people, but sometimes it gets tough and I can't, those people used that money to buy drugs or something else that they did not need. I help when I can, it's not my fault when they fail.

  • 01.01.2013 4:43 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Vanerrad
I went to a mcdonald's and applied. got hired
lucky you.

  • 01.01.2013 4:46 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.

Maccas has no jobs, target has no jobs, hungry jacks has no jobs, KFC has no jobs, Kmart has no jobs, Woolworths has no jobs, Cole's has no jobs, and thirty other places I've applied to in the last month haven't gotten back to me yet.

I do, however, get welfare payments, about 250 a fortnight. As long as I keep applying for jobs.

Still though, there aren't any jobs that I'm qualified for. Is that my fault?

  • 01.01.2013 4:48 AM PDT


Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: Vanerrad
I went to a mcdonald's and applied. got hired
lucky you.
There is always work that needs to be done, sometimes you have to work to find it. I did not mention that I applied to many other places, or asked neighbors for work.

Sometimes a neighbor needs the yard cleaned or extra muscle for a project..

Sometimes you have to work outside the system, in order to get work in the system.




[Edited on 01.01.2013 4:54 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 4:51 AM PDT