#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Equality is the perversion of the NATURAL order...
it is a myth that is meant to protect the weak. Working to make everyone equal will not leave much of a chance for ANYONE to achieve greatness.
True.
Side Score: 35
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 26
|
|
2
points
In earlier days politicians were selected from the aristocracy and landed gentry (old and new money) because it was expected they had the skills and intelligence to lead society and they did so honorarily (unpaid). By the same token if they were convicted for the same offence as a lower class citizen the punishment was to be more severe because of their social station they should have known better. Equality would have perverted this to follow a dangerous course and at what cost.? Side: True.
There are and always will be those who have and those who have not. The clever and the ignorant, intelligent and dumb, dependent and independent, survivor and victim, strong and weak, etc etc the list is endless. Equality is impossible in a species where difference is the natural order Side: True.
|
Equality of humanity is a concept that needs to be made specific and clear lest it be misused. Properly, it is a social concept that holds each as equal before the law with no one above the law. This ideal is difficult enough to achieve without additional meaning added to social equality. People are different. We will never be physically, intellectually, or conditionally equal to one another. These differences cannot actually be leveled. Trying to level human differences turns equality into sameness; it isn't. Equality before the law is the only kind of equality that matters. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Due to these "intellectual, physical, and conditional" laws people should not be treated as equal. [Legally] A female sexually molesting (through sexual intercourse) a boy (10-16) should not be charged equally as male molesting a girl (10-16) based solely of the differences you named alone. I can list other cases where this equality should be limited as well. The law is what needs to be redefined when addressing equality. Females and males are not and should not be treated as equals. Intellectually deprived individuals should not be given equal treatment as the more fortunate. Rich people should be treated differently than the poor. Rich people and intellectually superior people are more beneficial to the economy. Physically: a man that bench presses 500lbs hitting a teen girl should have more extreme repercussions than a guy bench pressing 60lbs, even if they both had the same intentions. The only problem is the law (due to equal treatment) will charge them both equally for assault & battery- and this should not be as they are (physically) unequal. Side: True.
Equality before the law is not the same as sameness before the law as each crime has a unique set of circumstances. There are conditions that alter the way the law applies to you. For example a child or a mentally handicapped person does not have the full weight of the law on them, neither do they have the same rights. Our legal distinctions concerning age and mental capacity are appropriate. The young and the mentally handicapped are not fully functioning human beings. That being said, assault is assault regardless of your size, strength, gender, income, etc. The difference in the severity of the assault will appropriately alter the sentencing, but not the charge. Fully functioning human beings should be treated as equal before the law. Charges should be indiscriminate though sentencing must take account of context. The context must account for intent and severity, not superiority of intellect or wealth. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You've combined two separate arguments I've made into one. I wasn't speaking of the law when I was suggesting rich and superior intellectuals are above others- they are above others in a general sense. You've also went around my statements with misrepresentations and by not answering key points; for example: Women should be treated different amongst the law and in general when they sleep with an underage boy (they really should get any charges unless the boy was forced); whereas a male should be charged extremely for having sex with a 10 year old girl because the situation is entirely different (apparently you (obscurely) think otherwise). Rich and intellectuals should be treated better societally, and I suppose legally. Poor people aren't worth anything except business centered toward them (cheap clothes & cars; fake jewelry; 'look-a-likes'; etc.). Poor and uneducated people (not disabled as you tried to misrepresent by claiming that's what I meant by nonintellectuals) should not be treated at the same level as rich and smart people for their crimes (in other words, or ample, a rich person should not get the same sentence as a poor person; that rich person earns more money for the govt. and can do more things to help than that of a poor person). Side: True.
Women should be treated different amongst the law and in general when they sleep with an underage boy (they really should get any charges unless the boy was forced); whereas a male should be charged extremely for having sex with a 10 year old girl because the situation is entirely different (apparently you (obscurely) think otherwise). If you examine why the "situation is entirely different" I think you'll find that what you are imagining in your mind in those two scenarios are infact two very different acts. If a woman corners a boy in a street and forces a crowbar up his arse, and the man does the same, are you seriously suggesting that there is a difference? Poor and uneducated people (not disabled as you tried to misrepresent by claiming that's what I meant by nonintellectuals) should not be treated at the same level as rich and smart people for their crimes (in other words, or ample, a rich person should not get the same sentence as a poor person; that rich person earns more money for the govt. and can do more things to help than that of a poor person). Do you masturbate to this shit? It explains why you went to such effort with me to misrepresent yourself as rich... Side: True.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT... This post wasn't even directed towards you. And you didn't even understand the point. You just wait until you see something that indicates projection and you rant or you just childishly start arguments with inferential symbols or refutations indicating your hatred towards the rich or just towards people you think are better than you. Maybe you keep doing this to let others know: "HARVARD IS NOT RICH NOR DOES HE GO TO HARVARD, IT'S ALL A SHAM!" Well, if you believe that then go ahead, I won't convince you otherwise. These people you keep trying to convince, if they also believe you or are convinced, then that is also fine. I would love to know why you care so much and why does it matter? Are you disputing me because you think I just made an argument against myself (since 'I'm not rich')? --- PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT DISPUTE ME ANY FURTHER IF ALL YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS NAG AND COMPLAIN ABOUT MY "FALSE PROJECTION". LET ME FALSE PROJECT AND KEEP IT MOVING SO WE CAN ALL HAVE THE PLEASURE OF INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS JUST HIGHLY EMOTIVE (FRUSTRATIONS OF THE RICH; OR FALSE PROJECTION). Side: True.
Did I say that? Or did you mispercieve my comment intently because you like arguing with me? I most certainly clarified why rich are better and in what way are we better. The poor takes from the govt. (like situations where they cannot afford X and they need it) and they cannot provide anything beneficial that involves money (such as bill gates and other billionaires investing (millions) in methods that will decrease GCC, for example). I also said 'intellectuals' excluding rich (Einstein, for example) are beneficial. But the key word I should include is more beneficial. Now if you equate 'beneficial' to 'better' that your choice. I hope you did note to please not respond to my post with emotive or dubious refutations if it just a matter of speculation of my personal life (my money, cars, parents, etc.). For example, if you see me say "my dads Ferrari feels extremely light and manageable at 200mph, and that comment was directed towards someone on the subject of exotic cars being 'dangerous', do not hop in with comments that imply doubt--such as ":/"--because it isn't warranted (you don't know me) and it is unnecessary and immature. --- I've requested several times to see me on Skype, you've ignored (a tacit refusal) and yet you keep encumbering me with your misconstrued view of myself. Why??? Is it to annoy me? No, wait... It's to abase my image to render my credibility dubitable.. Because you've already let me know you think I'm a liar, so why would you keep expressing this feeling? Unless, of course, it's for others who may not have known of my "false projection" to become aware not to trust me... This would make you immature, then, for trying to deliver that message by making arguments constituted with implicit notions irrelative to my initial crux of the argument. Just grow up already "Teacher". Side: True.
Did I say that? You're saying that rich people are more "beneficial" than most people. That poor people are "worth nothing". Because of daddy's money you consider yourself one of these rich people that are worth more than the rest of us. Look, you spend most of your time studying something that has absolutely no benefit to society and living off your parents money. The fact that you have their money does not, in any way, mean you contribute more to society than anyone else. Consider a street cleaner. He doesn't earn much but he makes it so that when people walk down the street they don't stand in shit. This person is worth something. You spend your parent's money for them. How does that make you more beneficial than than the poor street cleaner? You seriously need a reality check. We should also note that you've said that you have no desire to help mankind. Infact, mankind are just a drain on the ecology. So how exactly do you see yourself as beneficial to us??? Its a joke. Side: True.
Here you go again speaking as if you know me. 1) I make my own money, and always have (I've sold candy when I way a child, and from that money they made me pay for my 'wants' (games, toys, etc.) so don't speak of me as if I'm a spoiled rich kid who has no work ethic. This stigma is what my parents loathed. 2) A street cleaner need not to be poor. If he is, then he chose to be. Perhaps he is to lazy to educate himself with the stock market and learn to invest properly or other ways, aside from regular work, to make money. 3) When have I said I wished to be beneficial to 'people'? I have consistently stated, amongst plenty debates, that I wish to (and do albeit not as much as I wish to) contribute to wildlife/environment (there are plenty of projects that either cannot function properly, or don't have enough money to function properly or launch projects. Me "rich guy" investing millions to run these projects will be happily contributed. 4) You surcame to the assertion of 'college studies governs life choices'. You've also implied that a degree in something means that is exactly what you will do. AND YOU WERE WRONG with my studies being non-beneficial (really? Psychology-(helping people understand their mental processes?) and I've told the benefit my studies have in regards to innovation. 5) A street cleaner can't save 50,000 starving children like a millionaire donating millions (of course not me but this is an example how his benefit is useless, I can hop in a street cleaner on my spare time and clean street shit (which sounds fun actually)). --- No matter how many times I tell you that you don't know me, you are persistent in thinking that you do. You need a serious reality check if you believe that you know all of my benefit based on supernatural powers that allows you to see through your screen and into my life. I have not once assumed an aspect in your life without warranted reasons (e.g. you said you were an English teach in school so I assumed you made less than 84K a year, which turned out to be true). Let this be the last request to not make strong assumptions like 'what I do with my daddy's money'. And I'll refrain from assuming 'what you can't do with your no money'. Thanks teach. Side: True.
1) I make my own money, and always have (I've sold candy when I way a child, and from that money they made me pay for my 'wants' (games, toys, etc.) so don't speak of me as if I'm a spoiled rich kid who has no work ethic. This stigma is what my parents loathed. So how exactly are you rich? We have already established that your businesses make very little, if any, profit. Are you saying you study full-time, have a few businesses, and still manage to make enough money some other way to be rich? The lies are going to tie you in knots. They are getting more and more complex. When have I said I wished to be beneficial to 'people'? . I guess you didn't but surely it is implied. The street cleaner helps people. We like him for that. You help the environment and couldn't are less about us (society). Explain again why we should give you lighter sentences if you commit a crime? Fortunately, we don't just like people because they give us money. We help good people and punish bad people irrespective of how much money you chuck around. ND YOU WERE WRONG with my studies being non-beneficial (really? Psychology-(helping people understand their mental processes?) and I've told the benefit my studies have in regards to innovation. Come on. Psychology is a small part of your degree. You're not going to be a clinical psychologist with your degree.
2) A street cleaner need not to be poor. If he is, then he chose to be. Perhaps he is to lazy to educate himself with the stock market and learn to invest properly or other ways, aside from regular work, to make money. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! God, don't you ever read back what you've wrote and feel an urge to give yourself a good hard slap in the face? Invest what? You need a large amount of money to make money in the stock market unless you are talking about high risk investments which would not be wise for someone who is barely earning enough to feed his family. But putting that to one side... even if it is his choice not to retrain as a stock broker and move to Wall Street, he still has a value as a human being for what he does for the community. A value that is equal to or higher than yours I'd say. can hop in a street cleaner on my spare time and clean street shit (which sounds fun actually)). Yeah yeah yeah. You keep talking about all the things rich people could do to benefit society. Some people work for 40 years as a street cleaner and this makes a difference. It is irrelevant what a snob "could do". You certainly won't be cleaning any streets for us unless you find it fun. And I'll refrain from assuming 'what you can't do with your no money'. Thanks teach. Yeah because calling me "teach" all the time isn't based on an assumption at all. I do only a few hours a week teaching. Most of my time is dedicated to medical school. Side: True.
'I make my own money' does not nowise imply I, myself, am rich. Why you keep claiming I am saying that I'm rich is anyone's guess. However, I have implied that I will become rich, and I will do so I two ways: self made, or inheritance. So stop asserting that I am lying- and this doesn't even make sense because I have stated I generate 84K (not in profit) which wouldn't imply richness...? You're frustration is making simple claims complex. People who study zoology and botany are qualified to work in fields relative to their degree which both fields can generate environmental benefit. It depends on what you choose to do (come on, stop acting like a child, you know how these fields are beneficial; of course you can act as if you don't just so you can continue your self-defeating argument). God don't you ever finish reading a sentence before you make asinine statement!?!? I clearly said "or other ways" after my stock suggestion. You really are that simple, it's actually funny and a little scary. Side: True.
'I make my own money' does not nowise imply I, myself, am rich. Because that was clearly your intention when you attempted to represent you earned 84k per year. I have stated I generate 84K (not in profit) which wouldn't imply richness...? Some companies generate that but make make a huge loss. So no it doesn't imply richness. It did though when you wanted to make out that was profit though. However, I have implied that I will become rich, and I will do so I two ways: self made, or inheritance. So you will basically become rich because of your parents? Tell me again how you think this makes you of more value than the street cleaner? Why should you get a lighter sentences for crimes again? People who study zoology and botany are qualified to work in fields relative to their degree which both fields can generate environmental benefit We were talking about benefit to society. I clearly said "or other ways" after my stock suggestion. List one other way that he could do alongside his 45 hour week with children and a wife? Of course I was going to pick up on the stock thing. If someone says to you "you can either drink piss with your meal or another thing" and then someone points out that this is absurd. It would be very strange to answer that with "I clearly said 'or other things'" Of course I was going to address the stupid stock market suggestion!!! Side: True.
I'm done with this argument. I believe you are purposely being absurd for the argument to be in your favor. For instance, even if I applied "84K" to profits THAT STILL doesn't imply "richness". And you keep professing 84K per year=rich (ha! I guess everyone has a false perception of 'middle class' huh? Mostly, they make 6 figures--which excludes 84K--so I guess they are 'really rich' right (100K > 84K)? I also could've sworn we established it was a misuse of words when I stated "net margin" which means, therefore, I wasn't attempting to claim I personally make that much- and I stated "my companies" make that much which still implies I do not. Then you disregard my "self-made" statement and assert my parents are my reason for becoming rich...? Lol you are terrible at debating. You, again, exclude "psychology" all while being wrong about the environment not correlating with society (if I help the environment (botany, zoology), consequently, society benefits). (Again, I feel you, intentionally, are offering bad arguments.) Lastly: now the street cleaner has a wife and kids and works 45 hour weeks (adjusting your scenario to benefit your argument)? Anywho, there are plenty of ways he can make money: he could save and purchase something that generates money; he could invent, from his years of experience, a new way that makes street cleaning more efficient; he could've chose not to have kids (which would've cut his liability costs) and saved that money, strategized, and flipped his savings. -- Just a reminder: I'm done with this argument. Side: True.
For instance, even if I applied "84K" to profits THAT STILL doesn't imply "richness". And you keep professing 84K per year=rich (ha! I guess everyone has a false perception of 'middle class' huh? Mostly, they make 6 figures--which excludes 84K--so I guess they are 'really rich' right (100K > 84K)? Owning a few companies that give you a profit of 84k would make you fairly rich and absolutely it qualifies as middle class. I guess sociology isn't covered in your botanical zoopsychology degree. But its all relative isn't it? The street cleaner would get 2 years prison for stealing a loaf of bread, someone that earns 84k would get 1 year and a millionaire would get nothing. Right? I also could've sworn we established it was a misuse of words when I stated "net margin" which means, therefore, I wasn't attempting to claim I personally make that much- and I stated "my companies" make that much which still implies I do not. Lets look at what you said? I'm still making 84K a year, and you are not So, here you weren't actually comparing our earnings, as I thought, but rather you were comparing the turnover (this is the word you're looking for) of our individual endeavours? You thought I had a business too? Confused. profit margin meaning- around how much I make in profits (I.e.if I profit 10K a year, during the summer, that profit margin increases to 13K a year). Here you are talking about profit. Is it that you don't understand the word profit and got it confused with turnover? Come on grow some balls and admit to your bullshit. Are you really that insecure? You, again, exclude "psychology" all while being wrong about the environment not correlating with society (if I help the environment (botany, zoology), consequently, society benefits). (Again, I feel you, intentionally, are offering bad arguments.) It is not guaranteed. In fact, as you have said, human beings often get in the way of environmental causes. Haven't you actually said before that it is better that people starve to death so that they don't become a drain on the ecology? Yeah.. I see more value in the street cleaner. His contribution is much more direct. Lastly: now the street cleaner has a wife and kids and works 45 hour weeks (adjusting your scenario to benefit your argument)? Anywho, there are plenty of ways he can make money: he could save and purchase something that generates money; he could invent, from his years of experience, a new way that makes street cleaning more efficient; he could've chose not to have kids (which would've cut his liability costs) and saved that money, strategized, and flipped his savings. -- Again, none of those things are guaranteed to happen but in any case, even if he chooses not to try any of those things he is still a better person than a snob with daddy's money. Then you disregard my "self-made" statement and assert my parents are my reason for becoming rich...? Lol you are terrible at debating. Because I'm not playing into your ego. I don't believe you a guaranteed to get rich. I have actually never met anyone in my life that says "oh I'm absolutely sure that after finishing my doss-around degree I will be super rich from whatever I do". I don't understand how you don't realise how silly and arrogant you come across. I'm done with this argument. That's okay. I pointed out how silly you are and that's enough for me. Until the next time!! Side: True.
As I said, I am done with this fallacious argument. (Here is some tips: next time, actually address each point in a sensible mature manner rather than reiterating half statements using fallacious methods such as: "Im still making 84K a year[...]," while intentionally leaving out "well, my companies do, but you get the point.--" clearly I wasn't indicating that lump sum was my own profit especially when I clarified before that statement that I was referring to my companies but I was misusing a word that didn't even logically make sense "profit margin" in conjunction with an inference to my companies profit (which I admitted was a mistake). Again, more bad arguments. You can address simple claims without, either, misrepresenting (Straw Man); Sophistry (speaking lots of nonsense while constructing that nonsense with persuasive (albeit irrelative) reasoning to make your arguments look valid); or, just asserting (false) presumptions ("daddy's money"- when my mother could very well be the rich one). Become a better debater and more mature, then you may reasonably respond to one of my statements with substantial disputations or clarifications. (And get this through what apparently is a thick ill-used brain: You don't know me personally, so REFRAIN from offering disputations in respects to a life (mine) that you cannot actually see. We understand people who have stuff--that is far from your reach and conception--and who you feel "don't deserve" said stuff, are at the top of your hate list, but my arguments aren't facilitators for you to emotively vent your nonsensical irrational pitiful detestation towards people who work harder than others thus acquiring more benefit while transferring that knowledge to their offspring thus resulting in a inherent trend that is good for both the environment and society (NOTE: the last part is my conviction). --- And I love how you said 84K is fairly rich knowing that companies generate up to 400B. Rich implies wealth and "84K" is not the yearly income that society deems as "rich" (maybe in extremely poor countries) and you know this, but to keep your self-defeated argument alive you've succumbed to the practice of sophistry. G'day mate. Side: True.
"Im still making 84K a year[...]," while intentionally leaving out "well, my companies do, but you get the point.--" You posted that bit a few days later when you realised I wasn't going to believe you. actually address each point in a sensible mature manner What point have a failed to address? Please tell me (I know you wont). I see you have ignored the points I made previously and just replied as if I hadn't said anything. I DID address you points. clearly I wasn't indicating that lump sum was my own profit especially when I clarified before that statement "I am earning more money than most people my age--or just most people. "" This was a lie then? (you wont answer this) But yet you say 84k a year isn't rich even if it was someones personal earnings. Make up your mind. Silly boy. You don't know me personally, so REFRAIN from offering disputations in respects to a life (mine) that you cannot actually see.... etc etc etc You know why you have to rant like this? Because you can't actually address what I'm saying about you. You failed to address: 1) The quotes how and they can be interpreted in any other way than you implying you earn a hell of a lot more than me and "most people". Again, are you saying you also didn't understand the word "profit" and "earn"? Again the quotes are: 2) You want people to starve to death for the good of the ecology but feel you, as a rich botany student (whose businesses barely make any profit - woops!), deserve more from society than the street cleaner. You can't explain that one can you? irrational pitiful detestation towards people who work harder than others thus acquiring more benefit Botany dude living off daddy's (okay okay or mummy's) money: you do not work harder than the street cleaner. Get a grip. Your profile picture is ridiculous btw. I assume you want people to think that's you. I guess you googled "young rich guy". And I love how you said 84K is fairly rich knowing that companies generate up to 400B. Rich implies wealth and "84K" is not the yearly income that society deems as "rich" Well, when you were misrepresenting that you earn that much you were saying it is more than most people earn. This is one way of defining a rich person - they earn more than most people. I call my friend rich who earns less than that so I do really describe people as rich who earn that. NOTE: the last part is my conviction Yes. I recognised the lack of foundation and general ignorant snobbery. Side: True.
You posted that bit a few days later when you realised I wasn't going to believe you. Wrong, that was in parenthesis right next to that 84K statement (a specific statement). Go back and check. What point have a failed to address? Please tell me (I know you wont). For an English teacher you have a problem reading in context- I implied that you didn't address each point in the proper manner, not that you haven't addressed each point. Me: I am earning more money than most people my age--or just most people. "" You: This was a lie then? (you wont answer this) But yet you say 84k a year isn't rich even if it was someones personal earnings. Make up your mind. Silly boy Is there someone I can report to at the school you teach in? I would suggest you are not qualified for an English teaching position. 1) After that statement I (directly after) I translated what that meant- "I" meaning: "I started something that generates more profit than the average citizen. Again a misuse of words ("earn" should've been further clarified on but due to simplicity I just made a brief statement). 2) This statement: But yet you say 84k a year isn't rich even if it was someone's personal earnings, doesn't even correlate with this specified refutation nor is it sensible. How was I implying 84K (personal earnings) is "rich"? I wasn't, so no need to answer. You know why you have to rant like this? Because you can't actually address what I'm saying about you There's a differentiation in that rant and the argument- and you are extremely hypocritical because your initial disputation was irrelative to my argument, rather all you did was rant you hatred of the rich. Nevertheless, I have told you I was done with the argument so you are now asking me "why are you not arguing?" Well, as you've pointed out, I am advising you on how to offer respectable arguments that are relative to what I am saying (or as you say "ranting"). You want people to starve to death for the good of the ecology but feel you, as a rich botany student (whose businesses barely make any profit - woops!), deserve more from society than the street cleaner. You can't explain that one can you? Another straw man: I never said deserves more, I said: the rich deserve less sentencing in prison because they are more valuable (I should've added: the rich deserve a hefty fine to make up for their 'crime'), you can replace a street cleaner easily. I also said relevant intellectuals (e.g. Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein) should also exempt from certain legal ramifications. I could also add certain politicians, congressmen, and other people carrying significant leadership roles should also be exempt because they too cannot be easily replaced. (Of course you've ignored this and only argued the rich statement.) And if you were a businessman, and you knew me, you would realize the point is to get the business big enough to sell for a hefty price (I can sell my businesses for around 200K based on projected traffic/sales) the point of them is not so much to generate profit, rather get the end result (selling of the business) to be profitable. Your profile picture is ridiculous btw. I assume you want people to think that's you. I guess you googled "young rich guy". You are further proving my point, I claimed your main objective for the random childish refutations was to bring my "lies" to the public light (as if it matters). You have a real psychological problem in regards to your intake on life (you care so much about an internet user to go so far into proving a projection "false", esp. when my projection is not affecting you since I am never initiating arguments with you that involve my personal life, e.g. I don't randomly jump in your arguments stating "Hey, you are wrong because I am rich and own 3 cars!" I don't actually own 3 cars but, you get the point. And my evidence for this childish behavior is that you've already indicated that you thought that that [the person in the picture] wasn't me randomly in another debate, but here you are reiterating because we're on a brand new debate and potentially have different users watching us argue so you must restate that assumption so the different users can now understand that that isn't me (which is childish and unnecessary and irrelative even to this sub-argument we are having)). Well, when you were misrepresenting that you earn that much you were saying it is more than most people earn. This is one way of defining a rich person - they earn more than most people. Maybe in your world rich means "if I have $0 dollars and you have $1 then, by your definition, you are rich"... Okay, thank you for sharing that equivocation. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
For an English teacher you have a problem reading in context- I implied that you didn't address each point in the proper manner, not that you haven't addressed each point. The proper manner? You didn't flaw what I said so I assume an improper manner isn't faulty logic or anything like that.. rather its just something that you don't agree with. 1) After that statement I (directly after) I translated what that meant- "I" meaning: "I started something that generates more profit than the average citizen. Again a misuse of words ("earn" should've been further clarified on but due to simplicity I just made a brief statement). * It isn't profit!!!!! Why can't you get that? It makes next to no profit. "Earn" was clearly an intentional misrepresentation. You arent that thick - come on. Anyone can make a business that doesn't make profit. That is easy. I could buy 1 million Ferraris (if I have daddy's money) and sell them for 10 euros each. WAHOO!!!!! My turnover would be 10 million. YYEEESSSSSHHHHHH! Let's go online... " I am earning more money than most people my age--or just most people." I'm bi-winning!!!!!! Fucking score. Now let me find a guy in a ferrari to put as my profile... And if you were a businessman, and you knew me, you would realize the point is to get the business big enough to sell for a hefty price (I can sell my businesses for around 200K based on projected traffic/sales) the point of them is not so much to generate profit, rather get the end result (selling of the business) to be profitable. Now this is fun. When you actually try to talk business when you didn't know, and still seem unable to learn, what profit is. How are you calculating that estimate? Generally, an value of a business is double yearly profit plus its assets. Well, your profits are next to nothing. So you're telling me that what the business owns and the money it has in the bank is 200k? Spread across 3 companies, let's say. That is 66k each. Then you have to find a buyer. Who is going to pay 200k for 200k in assets? :/ You could say that it has a higher value because of future potential. (I assume you have given up on the idea of saying that you will certainly make several million or else your estimation would be higher). But that leaves a bit of a shit impression of you. Basically someone would have to buy it thinking that they can do a much much better job running the three companies than you do in order to increase the profit such a huge amount as to justify its estimate. I never said deserves more, I said: the rich deserve less sentencing in prison because they are more valuable (I should've added: the rich deserve a hefty fine to make up for their 'crime'), you can replace a street cleaner easily I have no idea why you think rich people are so irreplaceable. I pretty sure the street cleaner could manage your businesses for you seeing as you pay CEOs to manage them. In fact, if many superrich people were in prison their businesses would be run by their employees wouldn't they? If they are actually the CEOs of the company (not too busy coming up with plans to sacrifice starving people for the good of the ecology) then I guess another CEO would take charge. Someone that has probably been waiting for the opportunity for sometime. Not that many people waiting to be a street cleaner. It would take a while to find his replacement. Maybe in your world rich means "if I have $0 dollars and you have $1 then, by your definition, you are rich"... Okay, thank you for sharing that equivocation Nope. Just earning much more than most people makes someone rich. Every you earn much less than most people you are poor. Seems a good way of using the language. Side: True.
The proper manner? You didn't flaw what I said so I assume an improper manner isn't faulty logic or anything like that.. rather its just something that you don't agree with. Sighhh, when I said proper manner I meant 'with respect to the debate' (disputing me on inconsequential points for immature reasons--such as proving that I am a liar rather than addressing my complete argument and invalidating it). To make yourself seem like it was regarding my argument you highlighted my implication of the rich and then instead of focusing on invalidating it, you assert more personal attacks (another fallacy). It isn't profit!!!!! Why can't you get that? It makes next to no profit. "Earn" was clearly an intentional misrepresentation. You arent that thick - come on. Anyone can make a business that doesn't make profit. That is easy. I could buy 1 million Ferraris (if I have daddy's money) and sell them for 10 euros each. WAHOO!!!!! My turnover would be 10 million. YYEEESSSSSHHHHHH! Let's go online... Sighhhhhhhhhhhhh, another misunderstanding of words- I was speaking of the "ends" profit implicating that whatever my business is doing that would raise the value to my sale profit, and unless the usual citizen can own and run something that would be profitable to at least 6 figures to them--such as my businesses as of current (WARNING: CONTENTIOUS STATEMENT)--then my comment was accurate/valid. I'm bi-winning!!!!!! Fucking score. Now let me find a guy in a ferrari to put as my profile... Lmfao still trying to get that message across huh? How are you calculating that estimate? Generally, an value of a business is double yearly profit plus its assets. Well, your profits are next to nothing. So you're telling me that what the business owns and the money it has in the bank is 200k? Spread across 3 companies, let's say. That is 66k each. Then you have to find a buyer. Who is going to pay 200k for 200k in assets? :/ Sighhh, this is why I stated "and unless you know me". You can explain to a potential buyer how a company will profit them more than the amount of money they purchase said business with (one reason could be that if you had enough money you could have room on the market thus resulting in more traffic/customers. (I assume you have given up on the idea of saying that you will certainly make several million or else your estimation would be higher). But that leaves a bit of a shit impression of you. How have I implied this? I definitely, previously, stated it would take me years to make the profit sale I wish to make. Basically someone would have to buy it thinking that they can do a much much better job running the three companies than you do in order to increase the profit such a huge amount as to justify its estimate. You know as well as I there are multiple reasons someone wants to purchase a company from someone (they may have an idea that would (legally) require your IP (intellectual property), for example). They may also have enough money to expand the company which could cost billions, and they know you cant afford to expand, and you've shown them "proof of concept" in regards to projected monetization (how much the company will generate in the future). I have no idea why you think rich people are so irreplaceable. I pretty sure the street cleaner could manage your businesses for you seeing as you pay CEOs to manage them. In fact, if many superrich people were in prison their businesses would be run by their employees wouldn't they? If they are actually the CEOs of the company (not too busy coming up with plans to sacrifice starving people for the good of the ecology) then I guess another CEO would take charge. Someone that has probably been waiting for the opportunity for sometime. Not that many people waiting to be a street cleaner. It would take a while to find his replacement. A hefty fine that contributes to something significant, obviously. And your statement is another tactic to invalidate my argument. And if the main person running the business goes to jail and is replaced could cause the business to be ran into the ground. That person with their strategic mind--which is more complicated than just explaining to you replacement the business plan--causing the business to do so well being removed from the equation would be obviously problematic to the business in numerous ways- which, again, you know this but you want your argument to persist. Now you say all this (above) and then say: Not that many people waiting to be a street cleaner. It would take a while to find his replacement. really? You did not once think of a homeless man, a desperate teenager looking for work, and elderly person wanting to feel 'useful'- and that specific method could actually be appealing if you were the one explain to that old person how important to the world and the environment cleaning 'shit off the street is'. (But really, you never met anyone willing to do any type of work for a paycheck? Based on some life stories you've told I would presume otherwise. --- Oh, I also saw your "up-vote" statement. All I can say is request the people up-voting me to comment for the sake of this argument. But your consistent concern lets me know how much you wish to be seen as the one who is right- since whether I "up-vote myself" or not is irrelative/irrelevant to this debate but you feel the need to let me know (which is logically incoherent because if I up-vote my self then I would know...?), anyhow it doesn't make since--although I know the real reason isn't to 'let me know', again, its to let the newest users know not to consider my argument so that you can keep you delusional patina/feeling of 'rightness'. Side: True.
Sighhh, when I said proper manner I meant 'with respect to the debate I see. Well we are talking about you so why would I be making points about the debate? ghhhhhhhhhhhhh, another misunderstanding of words- I was speaking of the "ends" profit implicating that whatever my business is doing that would raise the value to sale is profit, and unless the usual citizen can own and run something that would be profitable to at least 6 figures to them--such as my businesses as of current (WARNING: CONTENTIOUS STATEMENT)--then my comment was accurate/valid. What the hell do you mean when you say profitable here? At least 6 figures? You mean you could sell your business for 200k I guess. I explained with the Ferrari example how 200k is not a great amount. How much money has been invested? Not much less than 200k eh? ;) Sighhh, this is why I stated "and unless you know me". You can explain to a potential buyer how a company will profit them more than the amount of money they purchase said business with (one reason could be that if you had enough money you could have room on the market thus resulting in more traffic/customers. Riiiiiggghhhhttt. "My company makes 10k profit a year but guess what, its because I'm too lazy to make any more. wink wink. Trust me, it is well worth 20x its annual profit. Trust me, I'm a trainee botanist and my dad is loaded" Just pray they don't ask you about profit margins when you're doing your winning sales pitch... How have I implied this? I definitely, previously, stated it would take me years to make the profit sale I wish to make. By any estimating that it is worth 200k when it should be worth millions if it is "certainly" going to make that. Where did I lose you? You know as well as I there are multiple reasons someone wants to purchase a company from someone (they may have an idea that would (legally) require your IP (intellectual property, for example)) They may also have enough money to expand the company which could cost billions, and they know you cant afford to expand, and you've shown them "proof of concept" in regards to projected monetization (how much the company will generate in the future). Which of those applies to your companies? And does it apply to all of them or just one? hat person with their strategic mind--which is more complicated than just explaining to you replacement the business plan--causing the business to do so well being removed from the equation would be obviously problematic to the business in numerous ways- which, again, you know this but you want your argument to persist. And the business makes less profit. Who cares? I would much rather my street be clean. The point is: someone would still be managing that company. They may do it better or they may do it worse (just as with the street cleaner) but it means the former rich guy wasn't irreplaceable. really? You did not once think of a homeless man, a desperate teenager looking for work, and elderly person wanting to feel 'useful'- and that specific method could actually be appealing if you were the one explain to that old person how important to the world and the environment cleaning 'shit off the street is'. (But really, you never met anyone willing to do any type of work for a paycheck? Based on some life stories you've told I would presume otherwise. Well I know from working in a hospital that is very difficult to find care assistants to look after elderly patients. I assume street cleaning has the same problems. Ultimately they would find someone, as you say, there are people that need to work. It could take weeks or months though. If Bill Gates got sent to prison, how many seconds do you think it would take to find someone to manage his portfolio? As I said, I'm pretty sure the street cleaner could do your "job" of supervising your CEOs. Side: True.
I see. Well we are talking about you so why would I be making points about the debate? Are you really that st... clueless? Can you not see the issue I am raising? What the hell do you mean when you say profitable here? At least 6 figures? You mean you could sell your business for 200k I guess. I explained with the Ferrari example how 200k is not a great amount. How much money has been invested? Not much less than 200k eh? ;) This is why I said unless you know me. Obviously much less than 200K has been invested or it wouldn't be profitable otherwise... "My company makes 10k profit a year but guess what, its because I'm too lazy to make any more. wink wink. Trust me, it is well worth 20x its annual profit. Trust me, I'm a trainee botanist and my dad is loaded" Too lazy to make more......... maybe to an average person clueless about business this is a clever remark, but this is the dumbest thing you've said thus far. Just pray they don't ask you about profit margins when you're doing your winning sales pitch... This isn't shark tank, it doesn't always work like this. Do you think the "whats app" made millions before it was bought for [B]illions? No, but im sure it had enough traffic in other countries and proof of concept to be worth billions (same with snapchat etc.). By any estimating that it is worth 200k when it should be worth millions if it is "certainly" going to make that. Where did I lose you? Its worth that much now... it will be worth more based on growth... where did I lose you? (Again, you need to know me in order to criticize my outcome, [hypothetical]- it could be the case every year my traffic increases by 10K raising the value. Which of those applies to your companies? And does it apply to all of them or just one? Growth potential applies to my company and IP, the way my company is programmed is patented. And the business makes less profit. Who cares? I would much rather my street be clean. The point is: someone would still be managing that company. They may do it better or they may do it worse (just as with the street cleaner) but it means the former rich guy wasn't irreplaceable Okay, so just about anyone with a brain can run a multibillion dollar company... thanks for sharing that. And your equating the skill it takes to clean the street to the skill it takes to run a national corp? okay.. Well I know from working in a hospital that is very difficult to find care assistants to look after elderly patients. I assume street cleaning has the same problems. Ultimately they would find someone, as you say, there are people that need to work. It could take weeks or months though. If Bill Gates got sent to prison, how many seconds do you think it would take to find someone to manage his portfolio? As I said, I'm pretty sure the street cleaner could do your "job" of supervising your CEOs. "working in the hospital"... I am sure that the hospital is a different ball game. And as I said, if you pitch this BS to some regular folks maybe they'll be inclined to clean these desperate dirty streets. If Bill Gates got sent to prison, how many seconds do you think it would take to find someone to manage his portfolio? As I said, I'm pretty sure the street cleaner could do your "job" of supervising your CEOs. Lmfaoooooo WHAT?!?! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
How can you lie so blatantly? "Look, I'm sorry you have a poor shitty life. Sometimes you run into people who just have it better; that doesn't mean they are lying. They could be, but just to assume they are because it's better than what you have is absurd and ignorant. Grow up man; focus on money and make that your main goal and you'll see just how easy it is to make large amounts. Stop wasting your time wondering if someone is lying about money--and/or school--because all that is happening is: I'm still making 84K a year; and you are not. So what now? If you need business advise contact me: [ [email protected] ] - I will give you a number from there; you will be billed for the time." This is your whole post. Side: True.
3
points
1
point
oops, one too many underscores: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: True.
Look, that was the whole post made on one occasion. Later on, after me calling bullshit several times, you changed your story. It is irrelevant what you said later on - you start with you made a clear representation that you earnt that amount and that you earnt more than most people. Side: True.
Me: I said "why care" meaning why comment in the first place (you recopied my post and added the :/ face... why? Why did that post--the first one--concern you? Why do you care about that statement?). Stop acting like you don't know what I mean... Prevaricating doesn't solve anything. You: Now it has come out that you're full of hot air. Why lie? Me: Because it hasn't came out that I'm full of hot air...? I still am making 84K and you're still making less... (or my companies is but you get the point). I have said to contact me--by that email--if you wish to know who I really am... instead you keep making false guesses. Or you could Skype me and see me in the Harvard dormitory- and I'll let someone else clarify that everything I have said is true. Until you do either or, then you calling me a liar is just out of hatred of your shit life. (P.S: I would suggest you Skype me that way you don't make more bullshit excuses like "how do I know if that's you I am emailing".) --- Now you see why anyone following your arguments are just doing it for pure hatred of me. I believe you are potentially up-voting yourself given this statement was up-voted but the person who did it didn't even go back and check that argument- unless the whole "pure hatred" thing. Side: True.
Me: Because it hasn't came out that I'm full of hot air...? I still am making 84K and you're still making less... (or my companies is but you get the point). "Look, I'm sorry you have a poor shitty life. Sometimes you run into people who just have it better; that doesn't mean they are lying. They could be, but just to assume they are because it's better than what you have is absurd and ignorant. Grow up man; focus on money and make that your main goal and you'll see just how easy it is to make large amounts. Stop wasting your time wondering if someone is lying about money--and/or school--because all that is happening is: I'm still making 84K a year; and you are not. So what now? If you need business advise contact me: [ [email protected] ] - I will give you a number from there; you will be billed for the time." This is what you said. It wasn't until 4 posts later that you gave in and said that it wasn't profit after - it was your business turnover. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
The Enlightenment was the first time people began to consider the idea of having equality before the law. Making this kind of equality a guiding principle in legal institutions empowered individuals to change their own station in life, which they proceeded to do, advancing society as a whole. The institution of equality before the law is part of the ground work for the modern civil society. It is one of the reasons there is a modern civil society. To see the effects of institutionalized legal inequality, just compare Western civilization to Caste India. Institutions aren’t formed for the progress of society; they are formed for the benefit of the people within a society. When a legal institution favors only some people rather than each person, the culture of corruption that follows eliminates any possibility of progress for the society as a whole. Side: True.
Your "argument" was a statement of your opinion concerning how this issue should be treated. This, in a debate about equality. The stated reason for this opinion was simply that the situation is different. You seem to imply that a 10 year old boy can reasonably consent to sex but a 10 year old girl can not. There's nothing to refute here. Side: True.
Straw man? You seem to imply that a 10 year old boy can reasonably consent to sex but a 10 year old girl can not. There's nothing to refute here. I never stated that. I implied subsequent effects are different thus rendering those two [boy & girl] unequal (which is why I made those physiological and psychological statements because a boy, both physiologically and psychologically, has less to none consequent damages as in the case of the 10 year old girl. But I guess you suggest otherwise perhaps due to your ignorance in the anatomical & psychological domain). I never stated anything about 'consent'. You still have yet to explain (thoroughly) how these situations should be treated equally in the court of law or the general public. My argument was inserted in the debate regarding equality so this "in a debate about equality" makes zero sense as you have implicitly suggested that situations (like the man/woman, for example) should be and is treated equally- which you haven't cared to explain why, you just prevaricate by explaining (historically) why it is treated equally. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
When you said that a woman shouldn't be charged unless she forced the boy, you were talking about consent. This means either that a little girl never consents or that she is damaged regardless of consent whereas you think the boy is not. If you are arguing that a little boy is less damaged by sexual abuse, go ahead and make that case (you would need to show actual research for a change, rather than anecdotal evidence or personal insight). It doesn't mean that the woman is not a pedophile. The charge would be the same though the sentence may be different. It's the same concept as varying sentences that can come with varying degrees of assault (regardless of mass, gender, income, etc). Just to be clear, if you prove that little boys are less damaged, you have not proved that the woman should not be charged with pedophilia. Side: True.
2
points
As a devil's advocate here, I might point out that the potential consequences of sex are generally more severe for a female than a male, assuming we are referring to cisgendered heterosexual pairings with "standard" sexual practices of course. Among other things, the penetrated partner has a significantly higher risk of contracting an std from an infected partner than is the case were the roles reversed, and males also enjoy a pleasantly low chance of getting pregnant. And that's just the physiological stuff; there are definitely cultural and societal factors at play that make this entire thing rougher on a girl than on a boy- I'm not speculating that a boy or girl would be more or less traumatized by such an event, mind you- I'm speculating about the way he or she will be looked at and treated afterwards. If informed consent is what is important, and understanding the possible ramifications of ones actions is required for informed consent, it would seem to me that a greater level of intellectual development and information is needed for a girl to provide informed consent vs a boy doing the same; from that perspective, it might be entirely reasonable to consider two potential cases of sexual abuse differently. That said, I don't believe that we could reasonably divide the rule of law up that way, even if we had hard data to support it, due to the current social climate in the US. And even if we could, I don't necessarily feel that we should. I think it's better in most cases to treat everyone equally even if everybody knows that they aren't really equal. Side: True.
I recognize that the greater damage argument may be true, but it still misses the point. Abuse is abuse regardless of damage. The extent of damage may impact the sentencing, not the charge. Harvard specifically kept this argument to intercourse, but there are varying degrees of sexual assault and abuse that cause varying degrees of harm and are not gender specific. The charge of sexual abuse applies equally to men and women well before the level of intercourse. For a woman (or anybody) to not be charged with abuse, you would have to show not only less harm, but no harm. Side: True.
2
points
Like I said, I understand the legal aspects of it and was just playing devil's advocate about a portion of it. I would note, however, that 'abuse' has nothing to do with whether or not actual harm is caused, but whether harm was caused beyond that which the recipient made informed consent to. This is why such conduct as striking a submissive with a riding crop hard enough to bruise or even draw blood may not be considered abuse. Side: True.
2
points
And I recognize that as a necessity when dealing with this from a legal perspective. But ignoring the need to have specific criteria insofar as the law is concerned... How do you define child? At what point is the individual in question no longer a child? Why do you assume an inability to make informed consent, and an inability to understand? Remember- I am well aware that more or less arbitrary cutoff points are necessary for a legal perspective. I'm not talking about legal here. Side: True.
My whole argument concerned equality before the law. The arbitrary line for age is tricky which is why I refered to little girls and little boys. The image is of the 10 year old that Harvard mentioned rather than the teenager included in his range. Mine is an argument that includes contextual consideration in specific cases. This means there is no sweeping generalization that would hold women less accountable than men for a given crime. Gender isn't the factor, harm is. EDIT: the inability to understand is based on general stages of development. The purpose of law requires the arbitrary lines, but there is a point where it is safer to assume lack of understanding where the adult is sure to understand. Side: True.
Ah so it is you tuning in on genricnames arguments. If I may ask (even though I already know) do you by some chance regularly check on my profile to see who I am arguing? --- I love how you ask for evidence proving a prepubescent boy is less damaged than a girl (which is both physiologically and psychologically false). You may not have known but little girls--and virgins--have this thing called a hymen for when they haven't had sex yet. For a prepubescent girl, 1st time intercourse can be way more destructive to her body than a more developed girl (for example the girl may bleed excessively). A boy does not experience any of these problems. He is sexually stimulated and feels amazing afterwards (one example--which I should not and will not absurdly provide evidence for--is boys frantically masturbating through their childhood, whereas most girls do not (esp. to that of a boys level). The reason it could be more psychologically damaging [for the girl] is because emotions are more involved with sex for girls than guys. So when you take something women consider 'special' from them and they come to realize (and when they get a little older they do, or the girl feels guilty right after), it could have a psychological effect in the long run. So to ask for evidence with a straight face proving that a boy would be just the same if not more damaged it quite absurd. Of course you know (and I can tell because you wont give too much of a straight answer) this but you are trying to get into a technicality battle which just cant hold in this topic. Basically, a boy is more than likely to have little to no damages from intercourse with an older male (unless she rode him to hard, I suppose) so to treat a woman with charges to the same degree of a man is unjust. I never said she wasn't a pedo... don't put words into my mouth, that would be, by definition, a false statement. Side: True.
Thousandin1 was addressing my post so it was in my alerts. First, I check the argument waterfall. I check your profile when you are arguing about something I'm interested in. You're not special Harvard, I do that with everyone. I know you can prove greater physical (and thus psychological) harm from intercourse between a man and a girl. I do not believe you can prove there is no harm when a little boy is molested. The crime in question is sexual molestation. I recognize that you narrowed the form of assault to strictly intercourse, but the charge is more expansive than that and begins well before intercourse. This means that a man can molest a girl in a number of ways that does not cause physical harm, just as a woman can to a boy. That being said, if greater damage calls for harsher sentencing you have a difference in damage, not in gender and the charge is still molestation. It is thus appropriate to hold pedos equal before the law regardless of gender. This is essentially the same as the issue of a very strong man who assaults someone when compared to a weaker man. The charge is the same, the severity of the sentence may vary based on damage, not the virtue of strength. Side: True.
Maybe you can use this to support your argument: http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/
Supporting Evidence:
http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/
Side: True.
Maybe you can use this support your argument: http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/
Supporting Evidence:
http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
2
points
There are many types of equality, and only two that we can reasonably hope to strive for: equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome (the goal of most forms of Communist philosophy) is inherently flawed and can not be realistically achieved. Equality of opportunity, on the other hand, can allow even more people to achieve great things without bringing anybody down. And equality before the law should be pretty straight forward. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
While equality before the law is pretty straight forward, I'm not so sure that equality of opportunity is. People will always have different conditions which will limit or advance their opportunities in life. Ones ability impacts their opportunity, as does who you know and what kind of family you are born into. Is equality of opportunity even an actual possibility? Can it even be approached? Side: True.
2
points
I wasn't claiming that equality of opportunity is straight forward, as it isn't at all. Can absolute equality of opportunity be achieved? No. Can it be strived for and positive effects occur as a result? Certainly! Subsidizing higher education for lower income families, for example, helps equalize the education opportunities between high income and low income areas. Side: True.
While I totally agree with the comments if Amarel and Genericname, I would add this: Bringing about equality of opportunity is not easy for two reasons. We have created a dependent class who has lived generational on welfare. We have taken the sting of poverty to the extent that it has become liveable for tens of thousands Secondly there remains the significant spectrum of abilities that will continue to limit some of us from things from some highly skilled vocations Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
Please cite the number of people that you believe choose to remain on welfare because they find it "liveable". Remember, these people can NOT also have a job, otherwise that would undermine your point. And the spectrum of abilities would primarily contribute to equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. The goal is to set everyone at close to the same starting point, so that different abilities and different levels of effort lead to different outcomes. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
5.2 percent of the total population received more than half of their total family income from gov assistance in 2011. Finding a source to tell you how much more than half will likely be impossible because statistical accuracy is difficult enough without asking people how much of their income is reported for tax purposes. To assume a person having a job undercuts the argument that they are being lazy or mooching is inaccurate. I say this because there are people who make plenty of money who receive aid and assistance. I would argue that making plenty of money and still using gov assistance is even worse than relying on gov assistance entirely I would further argue that ability creates opportunity (I never had the opportunity to play in the NBA). Where do you draw the line between outcome and starting point? You would have to restart with every generation as their parents had different outcomes thus providing their children with different starting points. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
"To assume a person having a job undercuts the argument that they are being lazy or mooching is inaccurate. I say this because there are people who make plenty of money who receive aid and assistance. I would argue that making plenty of money and still using gov assistance is even worse than relying on gov assistance entirely" There's your problem, making PLENTY of money. Can you give me a figure which you beleive is enough money for one to make where they can not receive government assistance any longer? How about for a family of 3? 4? 5+? "But they shouldn't have had children if they couldn't afford them" You might say. What if they had them when they COULD afford them, and things changed? What if it was not intentional? And while ability sometimes creates opportunity, a lack of opportunity will also often negate ability. There are many people who have ability, but do not have the opportunity to use said ability. "Where do you draw the line between outcome and starting point? You would have to restart with every generation as their parents had different outcomes thus providing their children with different starting points." There is no singular "line" to draw, as it is an ever-changing situation based on what generally comes down to socio-economic differences. Making it easier for lower income families to have access to better education (both K-12 as well as Higher) will never stay as a solid line because lower income families can be located in differing areas over time. That doesn't change the need for said assistance wherever those families might reside at one point or another. Side: True.
I was thinking of, for example, wealthy people who put honey bees in the back hundred acre wood so they can get a government subsidy. Or the government flood insurance that all the mansions on the coast enjoy. In the future try to avoid quoting me in advance of my own statements. While there are many situations where government intervention can potentially make a difference, we must also consider opportunity costs, crowding out (reducing private scholarships), and unintentional consequences (creating a tuition bubble with a decrease in quality for example). The idea of equalizing opportunity must not be taken too seriously either, since opportunity comes from so many areas in life. The greatest source of opportunity is who you know, this will never change. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
|
