Originally posted by AmauroteFine, you know what? Let us all create a fair and equitable society. We can have welfare for economic equality. As for social equality, I want to be compensated for not being as tall as my neighbor because, let's face it, women like tall guys. Now in high school I excelled in math. Compensate those who couldn't grasp it. I couldn't build a bird house to save my life so compensate me for it. I want compensated for not being as strong as the football team captin. You want equality so how do we go about doing it?
The comical thing here is that I agree with you: life is very unfair indeed. However, I believe that society can work collectively to overcome its problems. In contrast, you support the proposition of the bone-idle inheriting the world while the strong go to the wall - if anyone here is utopian, it's you.
[b]Your assumption that people aren't given a ch ...[text shortened]... his, for all your talk you haven't experienced nearly enough poverty to understand it.
You can't create one form of equality and ignore the other ones.
BTW, you chose the whore over the scientist, didn't you?
1 edit
Originally posted by slappy115Which is all very juvenile, because we're talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome - and you still don't understand the distinction, even after it was rammed home in an earlier post. More to the point, even on your own terms you fail to realize that you're already living in a society of notional legal equality - presumably your moral indignation at an egalitarian society doesn't extend to recognition of your tall neighbour's natural right to use his superior height to kick you into the ground. You suckle at the teat of state-enforced legal equality every day and don't even know it.
Fine, you know what? Let us all create a fair and equitable society. We can have welfare for economic equality. As for social equality, I want to be compensated for not being as tall as my neighbor because, let's face it, women like tall guys. Now in high school I excelled in math. Compensate those who couldn't grasp it. I couldn't build a bird house lity and ignore the other ones.
BTW, you chose the whore over the scientist, didn't you?
The real issue is about reducing inequality as far as it is possible, and not needlessly dividing society or wasting talent through reactionary, lazy rules which shackle the natural energies of the talented who exist in every caste and class. You do it by removing irrelevant social institutions and improving vocational and educational access, which implies the equalization of inherited wealth. Doing nothing isn't merely lazy and cynical, it's a ringing endorsement of weak-kneed fatalism.
I didn't even bother thinking about your silly binary opposition, because it's completely beside the point: you're the one advocating inherited welfare for the idle, talentless and vice-ridden, not me.
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing what they could and should do for themselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Originally posted by jammerNice quote.
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking ...[text shortened]... n permanently by doing what they could and should do for themselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
3 edits
Originally posted by jammerWith gems like that one, Lincoln would clearly have failed Economics 101. Consumer culture is premised on the discouragement of thrift, from Hire Purchase credit through shopping-spree-lead recoveries to the global savings pool. As for pulling down the strong, I fail to see anything strong about Paris Hilton or Peaches Geldof. You guys clearly aren't for genuine meritocracy, and you're incredibly comfortable with corporate subsidies and inherited welfare. Until you square the circle, your nominal anti-welfare rhetoric is complete cant.
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift."
Originally posted by chancremechanicMake sure to use the women and children to shield the tanks and helicopters from rpgs.
Also include: all illegal aliens must join the Army for two years and do a combat tour in Iraq or Afghanistan if they want amnesty; then they can work on citizenship...just think, between 10-15 million soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan...problem solved!
Originally posted by AmauroteYou are one of the foremost canting humbugs on this forum with your attempts to justify scrounging and anti-social behaviour which is rife in Britain today thanks largely to the support its perpetrators get from wets like you.
With gems like that one, Lincoln would clearly have failed Economics 101. Consumer culture is premised on the discouragement of thrift, from Hire Purchase credit through shopping-spree-lead recoveries to the global savings pool. As for pulling down the strong, I fail to see anything strong about Paris Hilton or Peaches Geldof. You guys clearly aren't for ge ...[text shortened]... ted welfare. Until you square the circle, your nominal anti-welfare rhetoric is complete cant.
Originally posted by AmauroteWell said.
With gems like that one, Lincoln would clearly have failed Economics 101. Consumer culture is premised on the discouragement of thrift, from Hire Purchase credit through shopping-spree-lead recoveries to the global savings pool. As for pulling down the strong, I fail to see anything strong about Paris Hilton or Peaches Geldof. You guys clearly aren't for ge ...[text shortened]... ted welfare. Until you square the circle, your nominal anti-welfare rhetoric is complete cant.
