CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
Why poor people are poor (read)
While poor people are out at the bar drinking, the soon-to-be rich guy is reading books on investing;
While poor people are complaining about the govt., the soon-to-be rich guy is purchasing stocks at great valuations, and bonds with beautiful yields;
While the poor are watching TV or on dates at the movies, the soon-to-be rich person is acquiring new skills-set;
While poor people are being irresponsible by having children they can't afford, soon-to-be rich guy is around successful people that he can learn from;
While poor people are buying unnecessary things (birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, child snacks, games, movies, etc.), the soon-to-be rich guy is purchasing assets;
But I have respect for the poor who rise to the top because they see that money is everywhere and understand NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO REMAIN IN THEIR SITUATION(in the US of course);
Lets sum it up, Poor people waste time, are lazy (not wanting to read, or go around selling themselves), are pessimist, don't read anything resourceful, spend their money on unnecessary things, don't try and better themselves, put themselves in their own situation (having kids, etc.), and are irresponsible. And any poor person who say's 'I don't want to be rich' is a liar, for when their child needs a heart transplant or brain surgery, or gets accepted into ivy league schools, or wants to travel abroad, they can't therefore their parents are saying 'I don't want my child to get ahead in life (or live) because I want to be poor'.
Whilst the ambition to be successful and rich isn't necessarily a congenital characteristic of the wealthy it must develop at some stage in their lives. Those whose impoverished background and/or poor education has meant that they have been conditioned to assume a lowly position in life and, understandably, many in this category will accept this status for the rest of their lives. However, there are countless numbers of enterprising entrepreneurs who look around them and observe the wealth being enjoyed by others and decide, hey, I want to be up there with the achievers. Who doesn't? So, what do they do. Some of the qualities required to be successful include, ( not necessarily in order of priority) ambition, drive, a commercially viable idea, ability, tenacity, access to finance, an eye for detail whilst concentrating on the ''big picture''. No one specific skill is required, as the ability to identify the expertise needed for the venture and the good judgement to choose and appoint those with the talents needed for the business is what is required. For instance you may not be able to type proficiently, drive heavy goods vehicles, operate machinery, perform heavy manual labour tasks and so forth. But all these skills can be hired, and when shrewdly combined along with a little luck, they might, just might produce a successful business. Most people who missed the boat educationally wouldn't be bothered even starting out on such a daunting road, others will set out and become discouraged, whist the few will persevere until they've achieved, more or less what they set out to do. Down side for the successful, you eat, drink and sleep( if you can get to sleep) your business. There is no guarantee that your market will always remain stable and you must therefore be constantly on the lookout for changing market trends and/or opportunities for diversity without compromising your core business. Those who take the easy option will find a certain solace by criticizing those who successfully made the effort and wallow in the delusion that there is some conspiracy which has excluded them from entering the tough, cut and thrust world of the rat race.
It's worth pointing out that it's the risk takers who use their talents to achieve their ideological goals, as much as their drive for wealth that create the jobs and opportunities for those who want an easier life. The ''sheeple'' prefer to follow and regularly rationalize their reluctance, or lack of courage to stick their necks out by damning and trying to demonize the leaders of industry and commerce as money grabbing ''fat cats''. Pigeon holing and labeling the successful with various derogatory names gives them a feeling of self righteousness and an excuse for backing away from participating in the 'dog eat dog' world of competitive business. Their sanctimonious mindset, which they have worked hard to develop permits them to live comfortably in the more relaxed world of cloud cuckoo land.
When taking into account the argument the poster made, it is clear that the difference between the rich and the poor is ambition and risk-taking. So, yes, that is why poor people are poor. For the most part, poor people either accept their position as poor people, or they merely have no ambition or talent in life. However, the variable that is missing in said person's argument is overall happiness. As cliche as it is, money does not create happiness, so while the poor may be poor and the rich may be rich, that poor person might be far happier than the rich person, just for the reason that they have the free time to do what they want to. Like the poster said, while the poor person is doing nothing, the rich person is out doing something, and this is true. But the missing piece is that that poor person might be completely happy doing nothing and that rich person might be completely upset with his life. It all depends on the overall happiness of the people involved.
While the soon to be rich guys are out at the bar drinking and persuading others to join in on a pyramid scheme, the poor guy is in the back washing dishes.
While poor people are complaining about the govt., the soon-to-be rich guy is on the golf course negotiating to be a lobbyist.
While the poor are watching TV or on dates at the movies, the soon-to-be rich person is snorting cocaine and throwing parties.
While poor people are being irresponsible by having children they can't afford, soon-to-be rich guy is calling his lawyer and claiming those kids aren't his.
While poor people are buying unnecessary things (birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, child snacks, games, movies, etc.), the soon-to-be rich guy is vacationing in the Caribbean.
This is closer to the truth than the pack of lies the poster stated.
I'm pretty sure the activities you attributed to the 'soon to be rich' here are more accurately attributed to the 'already rich.'
If you aren't yet rich, extensive barhopping, golfing, cocaine, high-end paternity dispute lawyers, and Caribbean vacations are either going to prevent you from becoming rich, or will simply be unattainable.
It's not that these aren't valid criticisms of the rich, so much as they aren't really applicable to the hypothetical 'soon to be rich.'
I can see why you read these examples that way, but the curse of the straw men started in the original prompt, was continued in structure in that reply, and now you're reading their reply like it's something it's not.
The spirit of these examples for poor, rich, or soon to be rich are about intentions, willingness, approaches, etc. The examples of behavior given are about divining general motivations, not explaining exact behavior. It's not that the person who is trying to be rich actually calls the lawyer, it's that they would or can afford it. The poor person might not be able to afford disputing paternity. It's not that the poor person makes risky decisions to become a parent, it's that the rich or soon to be rich people have been able to get out of their mistakes, often through means the poor person doesn't have.
I can see why you read these examples that way, but the curse of the straw men started in the original prompt, was continued in structure in that reply, and now you're reading their reply like it's something it's not.
With all respect, I am not. I didn't respond to the overall debate in general because of the framing issues you noted here, but that doesn't suddenly change the meaning of the even more egregious examples of strawn men that I responded to here.
The rest of your post is a complete non-sequitur. You start out explaining that these are general motivations, but then attribute the issues to a lack of resources rather than a lack of general motivations. My precise point, in responding to the prior strawman, was to point out that the issues noted are predominately one of resources rather than motivations.
I can’t even ascertain the cause of so many up-votes for such an unintelligible illogical point. Shows the comprehension skills of a typical CD user.
Most of the examples are directed towards 'already rich' guys not 'soon-to-be'. A soon-to-be rich gut wouldn't be celebrating, he would be working on how it is he will acquire so much money- a point which was simple enough discern.
While the poor are watching TV or on dates at the movies, the soon-to-be rich person is snorting cocaine and throwing parties
First problem with this is that it is a misperception of rich people based on cinematic projections (e.g. wolf of wall street). The second problem is you should be intelligent enough to distinguish between theatre and reality. Lastly, the third problem is that this, again, implies that 'soon-to-be rich guy' is already rich.
While poor people are being irresponsible by having children they can't afford, soon-to-be rich guy is calling his lawyer and claiming those kids aren't his.
Again, the first problem with this is that it only helps the case that they are irresponsible for allowing this soon-to-be rich guy to impregnate them. Secondly, a DNA test would solve everything and it normally is the poor guy denying the children given that they probably wouldn't be able to afford child support (unlike the rich guy). Lastly, I am sure you meant 'lawyer' implying that this soon-to-be rich guy has his own personal (expensive) lawyer on standby- but of course he cannot afford such lawyers because he IS NOT RICH YET.
While poor people are buying unnecessary things (birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, child snacks, games, movies, etc.), the soon-to-be rich guy is vacationing in the Caribbean
I'll assume that he swam there given the likelihood of being able to afford to go there in a more conventional manner...
-
This is further from the truth than comprehensible. As a matter of fact, this is completely illogical, your premises presupposes richness yet your argument is grounded on a man in the process of becoming rich.
What you cannot fathom is the behavior of rich people is inclined toward the examples I provided, not the actual acts. This is why so many people up-voted this arguments, because they understand this.
I think you're basing your assumptions regarding rich people from fictional entertainment and the cases that the media sensationalizes.
If not, could you explain how you arrived to this conclusion re: rich people? If not fiction and the media, do you have hard data of any kind? Are you basing this on limited personal experience observing a small slice of the lives of actual rich people, with inductive reasoning implied to 'determine' their motives and how much of their lifestyle is composed of such conduct? Or is this just blatant speculation, of the type often employed by middle and lower class individuals to place themselves on an artificial moral high ground in respect to the rich?
Anyway you slice it, anyone not currently rich who is participating in similar activities is certainly not soon to be rich, and most rich individuals who would partake in the same are soon to no longer be rich. It takes a monumental amount of wealth to maintain the lifestyle you assert AND remain wealthy.
I think you're basing your assumptions regarding rich people from fictional entertainment and the cases that the media sensationalizes.
I'm basing it on those who the media doesn't sensationalize and are non-fictional people from the entertainment industry.
My good man it is not entirely from the present but from the present and the past that I make such judgments. Look at how the railroads prospered, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Madoff, Kenneth Lay, AIG hands out huge raises with taxpayers money, for example.
Rich is relative, so I'll point out some examples that most Americans would agree are rich people. Then if you will, please indicate the nature of corruption for each individual. I'll start with an even dozen and expand as you need.
Remember how I defined corrupt; “He that is of the opinion money will do everything, may well be suspected of doing everything for money.” Ben Franklin
George Lucas, traded money for an ex-wife. "Perhaps it was a need to create a safety net, but he ironically went about creating the type of massive studio that they both railed against in the early part of their careers. With George never around, and seemingly more committed to building his empire than to her, Marcia fell in love with another man, and eventually filed for divorce. The ultimate rub? The man who she fell for with was the man George hired to be one of the principal interior designers of Skywalker Ranch—whose job it was to work with his wife on the designs all day. He practically pushed her into another man’s arms." - See more at:
Donald Trump; "Did Donald Trump defraud thousands who paid up to $35,000 to learn his real-estate investing skills at the now defunct Trump University?"
“He that is of the opinion money will do everything, may well be suspected of doing everything for money.” Did Lucas make his millions making millions or making movies?
Zuckerberg Did Facebook start-out making money. No it took 8-9 years and a failed IPO launch before they finally made money. Advertising and not corruption is the cash engine at Facebook.
Trump
Unproven allegations. No case is settled. No charges proven. No suits won.
The Donald is a real estate mogel. Properties not corruption have built his fortune.
If rich people are saints, then why do they have money?
I site rule 9. of the "Ten Commandments of Rational Debate"
Unproven allegations. No case is settled. No charges proven. No suits won.
The Donald is a real estate mogel. Properties not corruption have built his fortune.
Is reading that hard for you? What about him using bankruptcy as a tool to make money? This is like saying it's okay for a billionaire to get food stamps.
As far as some dumb rules, Did you see my comment? I basically said that losers use these in an attempt to win an argument. Keep using them loser.
OJ Simpson was corrupt before he was rich, while he was rich and after he was no longer rich, until today. He did not kill his wife because he was rich. Again non sequitur.
What's a matter you don't like my list. I can offer another dozen if you like. Your claim that riches=corruption is disproven by millions of names I could list. There is no causal connection between riches and corruption. Corruption is possible without being rich, and rich is possible without corruption. Don't ya know.
I already won my case. How many up-votes have you got? Debating with you is like debating with a kindergartner. I take that back, I didn't mean to offend the kindergartner.
What dictates logic and reason? How do you know if you have the ability to reason? If something is logical to you, is it automatically logical to everybody else. Is it that in which you deem logical, that everybody else should accept it as being logical?
The rules of formal logic were derived from observed axioms created by the nature of reality. Informal logic or reason is a further derivative of the nature of reality. This means that for certain things, if you are wrong, no opinion or number of opinions will change that.
Yeah, the points are here for fun. They are an added feature of this site, but they don't actually make an argument right or wrong. Logic and reason are not determined by vote, nor is a vote necessarily guided by logic and reason. Do you think that with my down-vote of your argument, your previously winning position became somehow less so?
Of course it didn't and that is my point. However you believe the points don't matter and yet down-voted me, thus making the points relevant at least to you.
I don't follow, I lead. Continue to be blind and accept the truth as what other people say is the truth. Those rules are rules set forth by people unable to prove their point and so they cry fallacy. Cry away.
"My good man it is not entirely from the present but from the present and the past that I make such judgments. Look at how the railroads prospered, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Madoff, Kenneth Lay, AIG hands out huge raises with taxpayers money, for example."
You are claiming (without a source, I'll add though I'm aware that there is some truth to your claims) undesirable traits in some specific rich people, implying that undesirable traits are linked to being risk. However, this falls flat because certain poor individuals can be demonstrated to have the same undesirable traits, and simply lack the means to apply them at the same scale. This strongly suggests that wealth is not the motive for the action, but the means for it.
None of this speaks anything regarding the modern wealthy in general.
You have done nothing to demonstrate a particular trend amongst the modern wealthy at a statistically significant rate above and beyond the overall trend amongst the entire population.
The source is common knowledge, the evidence is those that I listed. Again you fail, I have showed you that rich people have these undesirable traits and yet you claim that poor people have these same traits without any evidence to back it up. I gave examples of corrupt rich people and you have not provided any examples of such corruption in poor people. I showed a trend by showing that there are such traits in rich people, show me those same traits in poor people.
The source is not, in fact, common knowledge, and the anecdotal examples you provided fail to establish anything whatsoever regarding the wealthy.
But, here you go as just one study linking crime to poverty. Even with mitigating factors, it takes a certain measure of sociopathy, blatant disregard for the wellbeing of others, to stoop to such. The evidence of the evil tendencies man has in general is plentiful.
You have not established a trend whatsoever. If you expect to seriously argue this, I expect sources in return that demonstrate an above-average rate of malicious intent amongst the wealthy.
I am sorry that you lack the knowledge and the means (a computer) to look up those that I've listed. Having no ambition and not wanting to expand your education is of no fault of mine. Since the ability to accomplish anything on your own is beyond your capacity, I will give you some of the information that is common knowledge to the rest of the world.
Railroads hired them. "By the early 1890s, Pinkerton's National Detective Agency had 2,000 active agents and 30,000 reserves causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency, due to the possibility of it being hired out as a "private army" or militia" http://www.pinkerton.com/history
Pinkertons:"But it had failures too: a misfired 1875 raid on a Missouri farmhouse in which Frank and Jesse James were supposedly hiding, which killed the James boys' eight-year-old half brother and left their mother with a severed arm; and the terrible day in 1892 when a raid on the Carnegie Steelworks in Homestead, Pennsylvania, killed three members of the protective patrol and seven strikers, while other Pinkertons were beaten and publicly humiliated by townspeople."
Carnegie used Pinkertons to protect strike breakers in 1887 and hired them twice in 1889 when strikes seemed imminent, facts he later conveniently forgot.
"The agency’s (Pinkerton) reputation continued in a downward spiral for attempting to protect corporate property and big industry, and became affiliated with men like Andrew Carnegie."
More on Pinkerton: "McParland’s last significant effort for Pinkerton was investigating the assassination by dynamite of former Idaho governor Frank Steunenberg, who had during his term quashed a miners’ rebellion in Coeur d’Alene. The conduct of this investigation and the resulting trial did much to undermine McParland’s and Pinkerton’s precarious reputation, involving as it did extrajudicial kidnapping, spying, and jury tampering."
And you have yet to establish a trend amongst the wealthy in general. Pointing out a few instances is woefully insufficient for this. Your condescending attitude is ill warranted, as your personal deficiencies are at fault here. You are falling victim to several biases that are common in our species and society. That is not a criticism in and of itself, as essentially all of us are prone to these- the criticism lies in your apparent complete inability to recognize such.
You have not touched upon anywhere close to a statistically significant sample. How many times do I have to say that same line to you? How soon until you get it?
It is you that doesn't get it. One question for you; Do you believe the government is corrupt? When you answer this question I'll give you that in which you want.
I get it just fine- your claims and evidence just don't do what you think they do. You've posted individual incidents of wealthy individuals who are, for lack of a better word, bad. This has provided evidence for exactly one thing: That there are some bad people amongst the wealthy. I've never contested that. It is also quite evident, however, that there are some bad people amongst the poor, as well as amongst the middle classes.
"Some rich people are bad." That is ALL your 'evidence' says here. If you're trying to assert that there is a link between wealth and being a bad person, you have not come close to satisfying that. You need to demonstrate a statistically significant higher rate of being 'a bad person' amongst the wealthy than among the majority, to a p value less than 0.05 for the level of significance you are assering- which you also have not clarified. What you've put forward here is not even the very beginning of that process.
You're falling victim to confirmation bias tying in with a personal stereotype. I understand feeling strongly about the matter, to the point that you may claim to 'know' it. But you don't. You're making a claim that you can't back, and you are under the mistaken impression that what you've said here constitutes backing that claim. It doesn't.
You are also falling victim to a negativity bias exacerbated by the way the media does things.
It goes like this: You have a personal stereotype regarding the rich as being bad, likely stemming from your religion or upbringing. This stereotype causes you to look for the worst in an individual that you perceive as wealthy, to a larger extent than you would an equivalent individual that you do not perceive as wealthy. Negativity bias and confirmation bias come into play regarding your experiences as well; the negativity bias serves to increase the 'weight' of negative experiences in ones mind as compared to the positive, and the confirmation bias serves to increase the 'weight' of anecdotal experiences and observations that would seem to support your existing preconception. Two very strong biases that are a part of human nature are working on you right now. And that's not all- the media also comes into play, and sensationalism is what the media is all bout. Stories where the wealthy do good things don't make the news, because people don't really care about that. On the other hand, scandals amongst the wealthy get a ton of media attention; as such, the media is portraying a twisted picture of reality that feeds right into your existing bias.
This is not a personal failing of yours. Almost everybody falls victim to these particular biases sometimes, as they are pretty well-established in our psyche. But you would still do well to re-examine your position, and ask yourself just what all this actually proves. You'll find that it proves very little, and certainly not what you're claiming here.
Really, I don't even need to offer rebuttal, as you have not even established your point.
Moving on..
Do I believe the government is corrupt? I can't really give a yes or no answer to that.
There are politicians and agency directors who have accepted bribes, individual agencies and programs with insufficient oversight allowing for personal power plays, and other setups and actions that can reasonably be used to describe a given politician or government worker as being corrupt. But these aren't applicable to everyone in a position of power, much less everyone who works for the government.
If I had to make the call, I would say that no, our government itself is not corrupt per se- but there is certainly a minority of individuals within our government that are prone to those abuses we generally refer to as corruption.
I was hoping that you were smart enough to label the government for what it is, corrupt. It would have made my job easier. Non the less facts are still on my side, even-though you will still attempt to justify that the rich are still something they are not.
"MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A study done by the University of California, Berkley reveals upper-class individuals behave more unethically than the lower-class.
Paul Piff, a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at UC, Berkeley did seven studies about the behavior. His findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The first and second study showed wealthy people are more likely to break the law while driving.
Study No. 3 showed wealthy individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies.
Study No. 4 showed the rich were more likely to take valued goods and study No. 5 showed the rich are more willing to lie in a negotiation.
No. 6 showed the wealthy people are more likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize.
The final study, No. 7 showed the rich are more likely to endorse unethical behavior at work.
During an interview with Bloomberg News, Piff told them a “fundamental motive among society’s elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrongdoing.”"
"The famous 1980 study of Clinard, Yeager and others found that more than 60% of the 300 corporations they studies committed at least one crime and averaged 4.2 crimes.
Marshall B. Clinard, emeritus professor of sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, is widely known for his publications in the fields of criminology and deviant behavior, including four books on corporate crime. Peter C. Yeager, professor of sociology at Boston University, is the author of The Limits of the Law: The Public Regulation of Private Pollution.
Sutherland discovered that the 70 corporations had 980 decisions, meaning that they averaged 14 illegal acts apiece. Nearly all companies, 97.1%, had two or more adverse decisions. Citing these results, he concluded that the “criminality of the corporations, like that of professional thieves, is persistent: a large proportion of the offenders are recidivists” (1983, p. 227)."
_Finding the actual methodology on those studies was rather difficult, but a lot of criticism regarding them were uncovered before I was able to actually find them- some rather unfounded, but some pretty much spot on. Evidently he is well known for over-generalizing from limited data, and upon any examination his sampling size is not a representative sample of the wealthy in general, and he is very selective about what criteria he would use to classify the poor in the same manner. Furthermore, his sampling of the poor is even worse. Pretty pathetic excuses for control groups too, in the cases where they were even attempted.
In addition to the problems with the sampling, Not a single one of these studies controls for the fact that wealthy individuals are more frequently positioned in such a manner as to be able to indulge in such actions than the poor are- primarily because of the way he chooses to define the conduct so as to excuse much among the poor that should really be considered. It's a little too egregious to just be sloppy work- this guy was pushing an agenda.
Do you look into sources at all before you use them, or do you just search around for someone with a title that seems to support your position? That's a bit above and beyond confirmation bias- that's willful deception.
What you claim is complete hogwash. You preach evidence and yet you post none. Where are the links? You just claimed to have researched my findings, but didn't. I on the other hand, did my homework and noted the results of my findings.
That's a bit above and beyond confirmation bias- that's willful deception.
No, what you claim is complete hogwash. I don't need to post evidence here- the burden of proof is on you, having made the claim. I've posted some criticisms of the source you provided, first and foremost being that they do not establish the claim you are trying to make.
I'll be happy to provide source material in rebuttal- but only once you've actually established a point, which you have thus far completely failed to do.
Perhaps you need to have your own claim explained to you?
You claim that the wealthy, in general, are bad and corrupt.
This claim, itself, has multiple components.
First, criteria for labelling behaviour as bad/corrupt in such a manner as to be equally applicable to the wealthy, middle class, and lower class. These are completely non-present in your posts, and the working methodology of the later studies you noted use a heavily biased model for this that serves to exclude numerous instances of behaviour amongst non-wealthy individuals, when such should be considered.
Second, using the aforementioned criteria, identify the overall rate of bad/corrupt behaviour amongst the wealthy.
Third, using the aforementioned criteria, identify the overall rate of bad/corrupt behaviour amongst the population in general.
Fourth, demonstrate that there is a higher rate of such conduct amongst the wealthy.
Finally, demonstrate that the higher rate of such conduct is in fact a direct result of the attitudes of the wealthy (as opposed to the wealthy simply having better means and positioning to exploit circumstances in this manner).
Your original sources only established that some of the wealthy are known to behave in manners that you consider bad/corrupt.
Your additional sources, regarding the rate, have extremely questionable methodology for reasons that I've already touched on.
None of your source materials or arguments actually define criteria for the phenomenon in an unbiased manner applicable to the scenario that conclusions can be drawn from.
Largely due to the problematic criteria, none of your source materials or arguments establish an accurate rate of corrupt conduct among the wealthy.
Similarly, and also largely due to the problematic criteria, none of your source materials or arguments establish an accurate overall rate of corruption amongst the general population.
Due to those same issues, none of your source material or arguments demonstrate a higher incidence of corruption amongst the wealthy than the general population.
And even without any of these issues, none of your source materials take into consideration means vs motivation, which would artificially inflate the figures for the wealthy and artificially deflate the figures for the poor.
In short, as has already been said:
You have proven nothing except for the fact that there is some bad/corrupt conduct amongst the wealthy. This much is obvious, and is in fact what any fool can see. It takes a special kind of fool, though, to fill in the blanks with BS and consider their point proven.
Your ball, but I'm tiring of this. I've outlined what you need to establish your point, and if you provide these we can begin actual discussion on the matter.
But if I just get more rhetoric and insults, I'll be bowing out. Demonstrate your point, can the rhetoric and insults, and I'll continue. If I just get more of your usual tripe, I won't be replying further. So your call- we can debate and continue, or you can stay the course and get your last word in. Make it count if you do.
Not reading anything that you write because this is strictly your opinion. When you put links to verify what you say is something other than wishful thinking on your part, then I'll return and continue debating. I'm not wasting my time to present facts while you present lies. Is asking for the truth beyond your abilities?
His points are completely valid. Taking individual examples and pretending they are sufficient to claim a trend is irresponsible, and calking you out on that is not "strictly" his opinion.
I even provided studies to support my views, in which thousandin1 simply said they weren't valid without any evidence of such.
Study 1MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A study done by the University of California, Berkley reveals upper-class individuals behave more unethically than the lower-class.
Paul Piff, a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at UC, Berkeley did seven studies about the behavior. His findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The first and second study showed wealthy people are more likely to break the law while driving.
Study No. 3 showed wealthy individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies.
Study No. 4 showed the rich were more likely to take valued goods and study No. 5 showed the rich are more willing to lie in a negotiation.
No. 6 showed the wealthy people are more likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize.
The final study, No. 7 showed the rich are more likely to endorse unethical behavior at work.
During an interview with Bloomberg News, Piff told them a “fundamental motive among society’s elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrongdoing.”
Study 2The famous 1980 study of Clinard, Yeager and others found that more than 60% of the 300 corporations they studies committed at least one crime and averaged 4.2 crimes.
Marshall B. Clinard, emeritus professor of sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, is widely known for his publications in the fields of criminology and deviant behavior, including four books on corporate crime. Peter C. Yeager, professor of sociology at Boston University, is the author of The Limits of the Law: The Public Regulation of Private Pollution.
He might have said it is not valid because your link doesn't include any of the details of how the study was conducted, such as the sample size, methodology, etc. As for your second study, conflating "corporations" with "all rich people" is misguided, as corporations are inherently more likely to be unethical by nature of their primary directive.
He said he researched the studies, so I called him on that. He provided no findings. Thus a liar. The first is cited as being done by a university and we all know the educated are liars, I see your point.
Many universities do inherently flawed studies, they are hardly omniscient or faultless. Do you happen to have access to the methodology of this study, out of curiosity?
An interesting question, but it is more philosophical than anything else. Within the field of statistics, it is unreasonable to take an incredibly small sample size and make large-scale claims based on them. I mean seriously, their sample sizes didn't even reach 200, and they are trying to make claims about millions of people.
No, the prime directive of a corporation within capitalism is to make money. Nobody "orders" that, they determine how the corporation should make money, which means that those who are participating in that corporation are most likely going to adhere to said prime directive, and thus be more likely to be unethical. To claim that "all rich people" participate in for-profit corporations makes no sense, as it is factually untrue.
To claim that "all rich people" participate in for-profit corporations makes no sense, as it is factually untrue.
You just made a statement, please provide proof that your statement is true. And don't give me some excuse that you don't have to, that is total bullshit. The real reason why you won't provide any evidence to support your claim is because you don't have any. This is fact. Look up it's meaning sometime. My guess is that you will learn something new.
Just to make sure you understand what you are being so obnoxious about: You realize you are asking me to provide even one single individual who is rich and isn't a part of a for-profit corporation, right?
If you are provided with a list of criminals who were poor, would you conclude that all poor people are criminals?
Yes, everybody in some way is a crimmal. Just those with the means to steal larger amounts, do so.
An example of this is in this qoute;
"A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad." Theodore Roosevelt
Yes. For example the speed limit 25 MPH, you have never drove 26 MPH. Most people have taken an ink pen from the bank. Things of this nature. By the strictness sense of the law, everybody is an offender.
The problem here is that you assume Roosevelt was right, but he wasn't. You assume that a persons criminality directly correlates with his income, but there is 0 evidence for this. Poor people involve themselves with varying degrees of crime as do rich people. A list of low income murderers is not the same as a list of low income bank pen stealers, and neither would imply a correlation between severity of crime to income. You never really seem to know what you are talking about.
There is proof that income correlates to the size of the crime. Poor people are not in the position to steal large sums. Rich people are in this position. Poor people are convicted of robbery, while rich people are convicted of embezzlement, fraud, insider trading, etc. The sum involved are bigger, when the rich steal. Why wouldn't they be? Is a thousand dollars worth stealing to a billionaire? Is a thousand dollars worth stealing to some one who makes $15,000 a year. If the rich guy is going to steal, he's going to steal big. This is common sense, get some.
Though a rich person is in a position to steal more, this fact does not make a rich person more likely to steal in general. If there is proof of your "common sense" assertions, then I'm sure you won't have any trouble providing it. Also I'm not sure what the theft of a life is worth to you but murder rates are much higher amongst the inner city poor than they are amongst the rich.
Gross generalizations about large populations are generally unreliable, and this is certainly no exception (for reasons I have already elucidated to OP at greater length, and to which I am yet awaiting reply). In short, this stance assumes equitable starting ground - equal education access, equal parental involvement, equal social privileges, equal health, etc. - and further neglects the not infrequent hand of luck.
Your dismissal of the willfully lower income is equally over simplistic, not the least due to your assumption that all such people have children (let alone treat them as you assume).
Well I specified that anyone can overcome their situation 'in the US'. I said this because just about anywhere in the US is access to just about any type of book (Free if you read it in the library). Moreover, if the library doesn't have the type of book (I am interchanging 'education' with 'books' for obvious reasons), they allow access to a computer wherein in millions of books (amongst many of other resources) can be looked at for FREE.
It amuses me when I walk past some street discussing their financial problems all while walking past a free-to-public library wherein they could find a book on finances but they intentionally choose not to, why? Well... because who wants to read that boring stuff? right?
I might add that majority of teens that have babies are in poverty, so given the amount of teen births that have risen over the past decades, in conjunction with the already average US citizen above 25 having at least one child, it would follow that the general peoples in poverty have children. Do I need to do the math on how much it cost to raise just one child (without being extravagant) conjoined with the amount of money that classifies someone as being in poverty?
I am not disagreeing with your general premise that many people who remain in poverty do so consequent to their own (in)action. My point of contention lies in the absoluteness of your unfounded generalizations that all people who succeed financially worked harder and that those who did not worked less; this is not uniformly the case (or, at least, you have provided no substantiation for that claim). Similarly, your conclusion regarding teen pregnancy and poverty is drawing an over generalization wholly unsupported by the evidence. Once again, I am not contesting that most people have children but rather your categorical dismissal of those who live in poverty willfully by reference to their assumed children. This is in no small part owing to people I know who defy your view on the matter.
If your assumptions on poor people are your true beliefs then you have a very jaundiced view of being poor. There are many and varied reasons why and how people may be poor, and poverty is a far to broad an issue to summarise here.
There are many people who are poor that have fulfilling lives because they do not need or want the trappings of a society that is dependent upon the ideology you ascribe to those who are not.
Their lives are fulfilling until they gat into a car crash, or get fired from a job, or has a major health problem that falls outside of the realm of their insurance.
Or maybe when their child wishes to study overseas to learn better, or maybe go to a school like Stanford which costs $58,000 a year.
These examples are not 'fulfilling' their 'unfulfilling' given their limitations. Now if you don't mind dying or your child dying, not having the best education, and not having opportunities (such as studying abroad), then I suppose you can have a wicked fulfilling life.
HA! Bullshit self-professed Harvard daddy's boy tosser bollocks. That's what I think. Come up with some useful material not your fucking schoolyard poetry or whatever you call what you posted xD If this site had any dignity left you'd have been laughed out by now.
Hmm.. This debate written by someone that owns at least three companies that make a profit of less than someone working night shifts as a 'lowly' security guard. Mummy and daddy's money and contacts are why many rich people are rich.
And this thing about not wanting to be rich... I don't want to be rich if it means working 100 hour weeks (I guess anything less is lazy). I want enough money to support myself and maybe a family in the future and still have enough free time to enjoy what I have.
It is an integral part of the American myth that anyone who sets his mind to it can succeed, that diligence eventually pays off. It seems to follow, then, that people who do not succeed can be held responsible for their failure. Failure, after all, is prima facie evidence of not having tried hard enough. This doctrine has special appeal for those who are doing well, first because it allows them to think their blessings are deserved, and second because it spares them from having to feel too guilty about (or take any responsibility for) those who have much less.
Some how I think these people credit themselves for being born with arms and legs.
Opportunity in America is no myth. Today, people from all parts of the world, come here to make the best of the opportunity we offer. Still today, their hopes are turned into realities, because of this opportunity. To be sure, luck has a large hand in individual outcomes. Not every single opportunity leads to great wealth, but the general standard of living in America remains much higher than most of the rest of the world. Thousands join us every day. This is not because of a myth, but because here they have an opportunity to at lease try.
I am not saying that America does not have opportunity. I'm referring to the "American dream" that basically states if you come here, and work hard, you will prosper. We can both agree the all men are not created equal when it comes to physical and mental capacities. Now most people come to America to be with family. I think that number is around 65%. There are lots of reasons to migrate to other countries from other countries. It could be economic reasons, but I would bet that this not a large portion. Opportunities here are abundant, both good and bad. But opportunity is also abundant in other countries. Denmark is probably more the American dream than America. Opportunity is one thing. The ability to capitalize on it is another. Here in America, I have the "opportunity" to be a professional basketball player. The original argument makes it sound as if I give up all my vices and work hard at it, I will become one. I won't. I'm 5'8 with the speed of a carrot. My speed may shoot up, but my height won't. If I work harder at Basketball than Michael Jordan, should I make more money than him? We do not all start at the same line as Harvard seems to suggest. And lastly, his argument also is suggestive of Free Will....which is also an illusion. But that's another debate. Studies show that here in America, when people are down on their luck, we tend to blame the person. Other countries inhabitants tend to blame the situation. It's just who we are as a society.
Oh? So a lot of poor people are focused on becoming rich? Wow, didn't know that. Didn't know that poor people handle their money perfectly with majority having no kids and the majority being able to afford to send their kids (if any) to private schools etc.
Poor people don't have money to handle improperly, that's a huge reason why they are poor. Many poor people work 2 jobs to survive. These blanket statements have not actually captured why poor people stay poor or why people become rich.
I find more agreement with the post by Kalamazoo. I agree with the stated virtues required for productive wealth acquisition. The problem is that poverty is relative, and when a person says "I don't want to be rich", they are often already doing fine and are poor only by comparison. The hard work and time that goes into being a self-made person of wealth can be be spent virtuously on other less profitable (though still fulfilling) endeavors.
Furthermore, the summary of the argument implies that rich people are acting on behalf of their children while we must assume that poor people love their children and are thus lying.
It may be that rich people are rich as a result of virtue, but it need not be the case that relatively poor people are poor solely because of vice.
I think poor pelle are poor because they have no money. If they had money, they woulwouldn't be poor.
Basica'lly, it is like karama. They were born poor. If they were to stop complaining, then maybe they would get more karma points and reincarnate as a rich person.
But if a meteor hit Wall Street, then the rich people wouldn't have the skill set to make money and the poor people would. For example, the poor people could make money by teaching the rich people how to dumpster dive and live under bridges. Poor people would would also sell the rich people their shopping cart and make money that way.
Genetics also plays a part. Some people are born whiter than other people and/or smarter and that has to do with genetics. Show me a poor person and I'lI show you a person with bad genes.
This is true. I have noted as well that poor people are disproportionly ugly. ie damaged genes. People have equal rights, but equal abilities and potential is a fantasy.
You'd be surprised how well some of the poor clean up. If you were to control for negative factors during pregnancy/infancy/childhood such as improper nutrition and generally unhealthy/uncleanly conditions (both of which can result in an individual being far less attractive than their genetic potential, and both of which increase the risk for certain childhood diseases that can result in the same), I don't think you could establish a genetic factor making them overall less attractive, at least not at a higher incidence than the general population.
And of course, I presume you aren't accounting for cosmetic surgery, high end cosmetics, professional make-up artists and designers, and all of the other expensive means by which the wealthy can artificially enhance their physical attractiveness either.
There are a number of unattractive wealthy people as well, many from long-standing wealthy families. Given the availability of the aforementioned options, and the historical proclivity of the wealthy to limit potential mates to a very small pool, I think genetic factors are far more easy to both establish with the wealthy- particularly given that the wealthy tend to maintain better genealogical records.
By comparison, the lower class (and to somewhat of a lesser extent, the middle class) tend to be less discriminating in their selection of partners overall. This results in higher genetic diversity, which itself tends to result in fewer damaged genes, though it can certainly also result in less-than-ideal combinations of undamaged ones. Of course, the same conditions I mentioned before can also sometimes cause damage to the genome, but does it do so as much as or more than generations of breeding within a relatively limited gene pool?
Incidentally, have you seen any photos of Jersey-born celebrities and wealthy individuals without their makeup and ideal lighting?
I think there is a lot more ugly in Jersey than you think and a lot of it is covered up with cosmetics, that the poor either do without, or settle for lower-quality versions and less skilled application.