- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I worked 60 to 72 hours a week to get ahead. What's magic about 40 hrs.
Once you work over 40 hours your boss has to pay you over time, so they will try to do so as little as possible. Get a 2nd job? In this economy, good luck! I'd debate you on why it is ridiculous to even suggest that people should work over time just to pay for food and rent in the most productive years in the history of the United States and the world, but that I get the feeling you're too deep rooted in conservatism to wrap your head around an idea like that.
TODAY skilled machinists and toolmaker jobs go empty because no one has the training to fill them. These are trades that require trade school graduates, not PHD's or doctorates.
I don't think I've ever mention PhD's (which is a doctorate by the way). This does not refute my claim that these kids have prepared for the workforce. By the time they can even attend trade schools (implying that they can afford to pay for the tuition and to take the time off from work) they will have already gone through 13 years of schooling.
Where are the starving ones again? Make up your mind, are they starving or getting SNAP cards.
Some get food stamps, some don't, not everyone gets them. But when you give food stamps to workers because they can't feed themselves instead of requiring their boss to pay them a living wage you're only letting the problem continue.
There is no need to get shook up there GN. No need to be rude either.
Here is what I said earlier:
To be fair, there are a great and growing number of young people/children who are not receiving the guidance they need to focus on their future. Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people. What the government or the community cannot supply is the personal incentive. I would add to that the mention of countless job and education counseling programs, education grants are available. The problem for these people is incentive has been taken from them. The welfare check comes every month and every month they have to trade it for their pride.
[Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people.]
You know, looking at the quotes you picked, you've largely ignored the majority of what I said. But I'll take the high rode and instead of ignoring this (which I quite honestly should) I'll respond to this... again.
Here we are talking about minimum wage and job quality and you're saying that it's their fault because they traded welfare for pride. Some people cheat welfare, but hey, every system every conceived by man can be cheated. Not just anyone can waltz into the welfare office and get their bills payed. People are stuck on welfare because they don't have access to better jobs or education to get high paying jobs and you're saying that it's their fault because they have no pride. The environment has power over the individual and this particular environment is not all the fruitful for many adults. So I'll ask you again, what part of it isn't their fault don't you get?
Are you making the claim that these programs do not exist?
They are not abound. Not everyone has access to job training and education after high school, that isn't liberal propaganda, that is a cold hard fact. Not everyone has money for it and not everyone has time for it, just because a college or technical school exists somewhere in America doesn't mean that every American can attend.
Right : Tommy Taylor, Mike Luddy, Robert Richmond, Glenn Godfrey, Blaine Thompson, William Bennett. There are as I said thousands of people running the small businesses they have created. This my friend is friggen REALITY.
Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, I don't care if "start a business" is the go to answer for conservatives, it's not something everyone can do. Not everyone has the skills, money or time needed to start a business. I'm not sure why this is the excuse old men always jump to when someone needs to make money, because with all of the capital and resources needed to even start one it's just not a practical option... well, for now that is. If college education was more easily accessible you'd be seeing a hell of a lot more tech start ups, but that is a debate for another day.
Republicans support these policies. Republicans voted for these policies. Republicans enacted these policies. Republicans enforced these policies. Dispute that instead of going off on an unrelated tangent. Oh boo fucking hoo, liberals called a conservatives stupid (hint: they are stupid), as if it has never ever in the history of forever happened the other way around.
Dislike isn't tantamount to hate, and they see it as a threat to an ideal that they've more or less been indoctrinated into holding.
If they simply disliked pot and gays they would just shake their head of say "oh kids these days." But no, they hate it, so they make other people's way of life a crime under federal law.
Yes, the one year worse case scenario exists, but it's not the same as a federal prison, much less the (rarely) moderate to (almost always) high level prisons for rapists and murderers.
Maybe they don't got to a high security prison, but a year behind bars is a year behind bars regardless. That is a whole 365 days stolen from you.
No, you told me why you can't. I'm telling you that it is easier for everyone involved (especially yourself), and I wasn't by any means making an ethical appeal.
Whether it is easier or harder is a personal opinion and it really comes down to the type of person you are. For instance two employees might have a bad boss, it is easier for employee to just keep their mouth shut and think about how deep down the asshole screaming at them is a person deserving of love. For the other, it would be impossible to just sit there and take that with out eventually blowing up.
Except for gun control, maybe?
Maybe, while I was at one time favor of looser gun laws, I have always been in favor of the entire nation following one set of gun laws, unless you have a quote that proves otherwise. That would be considered moderate if I'm not mistaken.
Why did you espouse free markets, then? Was it actually for a more utilitarian perspective predicated on empathy, or was it closer to the side of having things be "fair" instead of real world results?
Utilitarian. Although I guess you could say fair as well, because let's be honest, people who have more than just their own self-interest in mind usually believe that their political perspective is fair.
I'm not saying that you should because it's "wrong" to hate people. I'm not preaching moral philosophy to you, and I don't have one myself. Unless something in your brain was shut down, you have the capacity to do so.
If you're going to talk about the brain and how to determine if someone is capable of having the chemical reaction they call love with certain people, I'm going to need to see several reputable sources that back what you say up. After that, we can discuss this further.
Tumors also occur naturally, and will not pose any real harm until they're going everywhere and permeating other parts of your body. Knowing that you have a tumor can actually motivate you to improve your life. This does not make tumors a good thing.
That is a cheap shot and the two are unrelated. Emotions come to people naturally and to claim that a reasonable amount of any one of them will stunt personal development is a claim almost as ludicrous as the exert from your reply. If you want to make assertions about psychological development, please, provide me with sources.
The benefits to anger are not unique, you can find motivation by recognizing that you love yourself and others, and thus want to help. Anger is not a pleasant emotion to have, even if it won't ruin your life, it doesn't need to control you or ruin your life to be harmful.
Being sad isn't a pleasant emotion either, but when a family member dies it's natural to feel sad and it's part of the grieving process (as anger is to) that in the long run will eventually return the sufferer back to normally. But, let's say this mourner mistakenly enlisted the services of the therapist PhD Sticker, and you told them just to bottle up what they were feeling. They would keep it inside and while they might be able to mask it for awhile, they wouldn't progress.
In any country it is a problem of you do not prepare yourself for your own future.
It is not a problem in every country, there are countries that have their minimum wage set a rate that allows anyone who works full time to satisfy their basic human desires.
People aren't in situations where they have to make such little money because they didn't prepare, this is a fallacy that older Americans like to bring up all the time. The economy has changed and is still changing, manufacturing is declining and being replaced by service jobs. Thirty years ago anyone with a high school diploma could get a factory job and earn enough to support themselves, hell, some people even raised families on those wages. That isn't the case anymore, a high school diploma no longer provides citizens with the tools needed to get a well paying job. To blame kids for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time for their problems is not only illogical, it's unethical.
Ask yourself what this someone has been up to the first 18 odd years if their life. If you go down life's road and smack into a brick wall, who let that happen.
For the first 18 years of ones life, no including the baby years, they are in school from K-12, getting an education. The education provided by the state no longer provides new members of the work force with access to jobs that pay enough to meet their needs, a benefit that your generation had and is taking for granted. You act as if these kids were supposed to be taking college classes in high school so they could come out with a bachelors degree so they can earn the privilege of being a living wage. An individual's life is not solely controlled by the individual, you have to take into account the environment, while conservative ideology can deny this all it wants, this is an undisputed fact amongst the social sciences.
I said nothing about people who are starving. There are literally thousands of places an individual can go and get free food.
You said that people who don't earn enough to satisfy their basic human needs should, instead of being payed humanely for their work, need to take steps to earn more. People have to get food stamps because they can't afford to feed themselves. Poverty is basically being subsidized because the United States doesn't put the burden of feeding the work force on the employers, so they let them pay workers in humanely and then pick up the slack.
If you as individual are by your own lack of preparation, unable to earn more than minimum wage, you can still afford to live because of hundreds of federal, state and local programs that supplement your needs for food shelter and medical care.
What part it's not their fault don't you get? A lot of Americans aren't stuck working these jobs because they dropped out of school or did nothing for 18 years. They are stuck there, not because they didn't prepare (graduating K-12 isn't a lacking to prepare) but because jobs outside of the service and manufacturing industry require a college degree now. Service workers are usually not payed living wages and manufacturing is on the decline, so it is of no fault to the individual if they happened to born in the worst of times.
However if you decide to take a spouse and have children, you will not have enough on minimum wage to support a family. Tell me who, that stays in this situation, has not made a poor choice.
I was never talking about kids, I'm saying one person can't support themselves on $7.25 an hour if they work 40 hours a week.
Are you talking "pay well" jobs or jobs that can support you. It is completely possible to live on a salary available to high school graduates in this country. A well paying job (above substance level) requires preparation and effort to obtain, as it should.
There is a reason people say "make the minimum wage a living wage" because you can't live on it without government assistance or splitting your rent with other people, both of which aren't always options. A well paying job isn't a privilege, it's a right. Your generation got a high school diploma which gave them access to well paying jobs, but now we don't deserve enough education for them because? I'm waiting for the answer.
Starve is your word. preparation for the future before the future is may word. Further, as I have pointed out a single individual can get food, shelter, and medical care for free.
Prepare is your single word. Stop using the word prepare, instead say: get a college education, get lucky or obtain incredible talent. Because these kids have been in school for 13 years, if that doesn't count as preparation for the future than I don't know what does.
Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people.
Okay, you're obviously out of touch with reality.
The overwhelming majority of successful people in this nation have earned their wealth. Tens of thousands of small business are owned by people who began with a vision and some determination. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, The Mark Zuckerberg and the Dave Thomas, and tens of thousands of people we never heard of, all began in this way. Millions flock to our shores for exactly this opportunity that you claim we do not offer.
Yeah, you're definitely out of touch with reality. You're pointing to the cream of the crop who came up with ground break inventions and you're acting like everyone can do that, they're just choosing not to. Immigrants came to America... they also came to Mexico, Canada, Chile, Brazil, UK, ect. Immigrants immigrate to a lot of fucking places, Dave, America isn't that special.
Beating children not only causes a slew of psychological issues that can last for life, but it doesn't make kids any smarter. If you're kid doesn't want to study, don't make them study. If they're smart they'll pass, if they're dumb they'll fail which is not a bad thing. Failure teaches children a more valuable lesson than any beating ever will, so fuck you sadists parents, go bother those nice folks down at the BDSM club, because that is wear violence belongs.
Here is where your story goes of track.
"Get a job" implies, support yourself. If you expect to support yourself earning minimum wage, you will run directly into reality in short order.
In this country it is a problem.
You could at that point identify and execute the steps needed to get a better paying job. When instead you simply demand more money, who is holding you back, Republicans or your own choices.
This is where your story goes off track. Someone who's only opportunity for income is minimum wage can't wait years to get a college education or work their way up the ranks, they need to eat and find shelter in the present, not in the distant future. So instead of asking people who are starving in the present to wait until the far off future to eat, it only makes sense that we do what most industrialized nations do and what America once did: pay people a living wage. Servers aren't your servants, they work hard and no one who works full time should have to choose whether to buy groceries or pay rent because their boss is to stingy to pay them enough to live on.
Today most well paying jobs require some form of college education, or years of experience. Someone who graduates high school will most likely not have either of the following. This country fails to provide them with open jobs that pay well, education to get a high paying job or regulating to business to ensure that no worker is denied the right to fair pay, and your solution is to, correct me if I'm wrong, blame the individual and let them starve until they can start a career? As an older gentleman you enjoyed a minimum wage that people could live on, so why shouldn't my generation enjoy that too? Do you mean to tell me that millions of workers in the American service industry don't deserve to earn enough to satisfy their most basic needs?
I haven't refuted that it isn't easy, in fact I've acknowledged that it isn't.
Easy or not I'm going to drop this because I don't see how debating something this trivial will add to this thread.
Are you actually going to prove that everyone hates Republicans, and that the members of the party hate "us"?
I didn't think this would need explaining, but as you can see by the original post (not post really, but you understand) this thread is a joke, as a joke the title should not be taken too seriously. This actually a very common formula, someone says "this is why everyone hates -insert group here-" and then will show or describe something that the said group does that pisses people off.
And again, no, it's not because you're different, it's because they believe that you're posing a threat to society.
They believe me to be a threat because it am different. Republicans don't like people who don't conform to the traditional American way of life, pot smokers, gays, women who have had abortions ect. None of the above are a threat, but are believed to be because they don't feet neatly into their culture. Different is scary, that's basically what it comes down to.
As long as you're not dealing or cultivating, it's unlikely that you're going to spend years in prison.
While most pot smokers don't get caught or get incarcerated (mainly because police are losing the war on drugs), it can't be ignored that people get locked up for minor possession charges. Your source proves that you can go to jail for a year for a first offense and for year if caught again.
Which assertions of mine are you refuting here?
You tried to convince me why I should love, I put forth a response on why I shouldn't. It would be a failure on my part if I only said why I believed you to be wrong. So instead I also used rhetoric in an attempt to convince you that I was right and make my point of view cleared, since it was not previously stated.
Okay, I didn't want to have to get visceral, but haven't you had these views at one point???
I don't remember hearing this from you in our last debate, in fact iirc I remember you as a die hard Libertarian, so I'm bit bewildered by all of this. That being said, wouldn't you agree that this really the result of indoctrination and ignorance, rather than spite and apathy?
As I recall, I have never had these Republican ideas. I was once pro-life, but that was more or less just experimentation on an issue I had never had given thought too. Needless to say, after testing out how well my hypothesis about the issue held up, I became pro-choice. So besides that little hiccup I have never agreed with the republican view of social issues.
You do have a point about me once being a Libertarian, as they often describe themselves as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." You remember correctly, I was once a die hard supporter of free markets and little government intervention. However as I stated "I will especially be angered with them when they do it because they are too close-minded to even consider an idea that isn't from their own isolated, out of touch culture." I am not going to pretend that I didn't once agree one some fiscal issues, but I'm not really getting this whole "oh wow I used to be just like them" vibe. Because I may have arrived at a conclusion that a conservative would have arrived to on some financial issues, but they were for different reason. American conservatives are knee deep in the American tradition and conformity. I listened/read work of economists from different perspectives and took the parts that made sense and argued against the rest.
Again, correct, but I'm not refuting that conservatism is causing damage, the crux of my point is that you're just going to have to try to get rid of the hate. It wasn't my aim to downplay, ignore, or disregard the damage, and I don't think that I've done that.
I don't see why it is wrong to hate your enemies when you have ample reason to do so. I don't think you're ignoring I was just, again, further explaining why I can't find it in my cold, cold heart to love them.
I'm sure that your brain was given the equipment to do this, you can do it, your fixating is just making it very difficult for yourself.
I'm not suggesting that you applaud the results of conservatism (in fact I feel that you should do the opposite, but we already agree there), just that it's optimal to try to get rid of the anger, because that anger is really just going to make things worse. And dare I say, you'd be helping them slow down your personal development by staying angry, an essential part of your development seems to have been moving away from them in certain aspects, namely economic theory and some values.
Anger is an emotion that comes naturally, and I can't see how it could be harmful outside of situations where it is in excess. By excess, I mean anger to the point where it controls ones life. Although it may be hard to believe, but I am not livid every waking minute. I don't think about politics all the time and I'm usually not enraged when I do. But seeing the way the world we live in and the people that inhabit it are, I think it would be harmful to not be angry. People should be mad that they're being oppressed or that they don't live in a particularly enlightened part of the world, and doing so doesn't slow down personal development. In fact, I know that being pisses off about something is often great motivation to learn more about the issue.
It is hard to feel a deep love for people who are perpetuating poverty, war, racism, sexism, the military-industrial complex and the incarceration of social deviants. People don't hate Republicans because they are angry at the world or anything like that, we hate the GOP because the GOP hates us. Without any exaggeration, the Republicans believe that I should be locked up with murderers and rapists. Not because I hurt anyone, but simply because my way of life is different from theirs. Because I have the audacity to smoke smoke, in their eyes I am scum and should have years of my life taken from me. When a group of people wish to imprison me for any reason I obviously will not take kindly to them, but I will especially be angered with them when they do it because they are too close-minded to even consider an idea that isn't from their own isolated, out of touch culture. My friends can't get married because their idea of what love is doesn't fit nicely into what conservative America's idea of love. They don't have access to the basic human of healthcare because the right-wing half of America wants to pretend it's 1776 and that we can all just live as Jeffersonian farmers. Children live in poverty and are then thrown into adult life with no tools to get out of it because they would rather spend money on bombs than welfare and education. I can be friends with someone who disagrees, hell I've had intimate relationships with someone who disagrees with me. But these people, they're just monsters that look good because they just so happened to be the victors. In conclusion, I can not love these people deeply.
Gravity is a theory? Do you deny that gravity is a fact? Creationism doesn't have to be taught along side evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory which has it's place in science class. Creationism a religious idea that is not based off of factual evidence or empirical data, so it has no place along side other scientific subjects. If you want to learn about creationism, take a philosophy or theology class when you got college, because that is where it belongs, not in the biology lab.
"From our history what person does not know that smaller Government is the only answer to personal freedoms and prosperity for every person willing to work."
Actually, the United States was a backwater country that no one cared about until the late 19th century early 20th century when -gasp- the federal government grew exponentially. The Republican Party supports socialist policies as well, it isn't just the Democrats, here is a short of list of some socialism that the GOP supports:
- Public schooling
- Public roads
- Police services
- Fire services
- Veteran benefits
- National parks
- Farm subsidies
- Oil subsidies
- Public buses
- Public railroads
- Social security
- Military-industrial complex
- Keynesian solutions to the 2008 crisis
- Bailouts for companies
- Bailouts for banks
On a side note, why not you always capitalize the B in business? Do I sense a troll in our midst? ;)
Not everyone hates the GOP. Only Liberals and welfare sponges hate them. They are told to do so by the Liberal media.
Based on your statement as a whole, I'm going to assume that by "liberal media" you mean any media outlet besides Fox, The New York Post or the Wall Street Journal. When it comes to international news, the American liberal view is actually what is know as moderate through out the industrial world.
The GOP know how to create real jobs that pay real wages by lowering taxes and not making enemies of Business, while Democrats have become socialists and create nothing but Government jobs and minimum wage jobs.
The GOP cutting taxes can only help so much, companies in the united states could pay much higher taxes than they currently are. In fact, our taxes are quite low compared to most times in history and our economy is barely growing at all. Further more, the GOP is against any attempt to modernize laws for the internet or to modernize our education system, which is actually the biggest killer of jobs. It seems like a lot of conservatives don't seem to understand that we're living in the information era and most of the new jobs created will be in high tech industries (that require at least some college education) and will operate over the internet. You really think manufacturing is going to supply good paying jobs in the future? Certainly not, the assembly line is becoming more and more mechanized to the point that it will soon be run totally by machines. Further more, 3D printers are going to flip manufacturing and shipping on their ass as they become more popular. So while the GOP is busy pretending it's still 1980, they're slowing our transition into a new age of economic growth.
But it keeps getting better. The Democrat party decided to force Obamacare on the people who told them they hated it.
Actually, the the idea of health care reform is what got him elected, so the majority of Americans didn't hate.
This took away full time jobs and kept companies from hiring more than 49 people. The middle class is being destroyed by this extremist party.
Maybe if we had universal health care like every other industrialized nation the American population would have to try to cram a half-way reform through. We had the most inefficient and expensive healthcare system in the world before the reform, it would be crazy to leave the pig be. Again, the Democratic party isn't extreme, they are considered moderate in industrialized world.
Democrats have become so blatant finally showing even the most dense of voters who they truly are and how they care only for their voting blocks. They will redistribute the middle class pay check to buy off the votes.
The middle class doesn't pay the majority of taxes, that would be the upper class who lobby congress to give them tax breaks and loop holes, but I suspect you have no problem with corporate welfare. Furthermore, giving people some cash so they don't starve or freeze to death because of the economic conditions in our country isn't buying votes, it's called humanity, you might want to try it sometime.
The GOP is socialist as well. Eisenhower's highways? Socialism. Medicare? Socialism. Police and fire services? Socialism. National parks? Socialism. If government is never the answer then maybe you should stop supporting the GOP because they are socialist and, like every other political party in America, use the -shutters in terror- the government to enforce their policies.
I don't think it's really fair to say he got a rise out of me. I didn't take as high of a road as I could have, but I didn't start screaming, talk over him, make a scene, use discriminatory language, make a fool out of myself, grasped at strings or anything of that nature. I simply used profanity and an offensive insult. Yes, what I did would not qualify as formal/civil debating, but in all honesty, I don't feel it really matter a whole lot. Profanity and insults may be frowned upon by people, but to act as if it discredits everything someone says is as shallow as dismissing an entire post because one comma was out of place. Some people deserve to have their face spat in, figuratively speaking, and I don't think people should be ashamed or feel that they took the low road for giving someone who is clearly out of line what they have coming to them, especially when provoked. Telling an asshole that their an asshole, and using their own vernacular to do so doesn't seem as bad as people make it out to be, but who knows, maybe I'm just being naive.
ISIS is killing it's own people in cruel ways for meaning less crimes based off of the teachings of an ancient warlord. This may not be our war, but can we just sit on the sidelines while those around us commit such unspeakable acts? We live in an ever more globalized society, so it is not unreasonable to consider other nations half a world away our neighbors. Do we really want to live in a neighborhood where theocrats are allowed to kill off their subjects and degrade society? Even just sending unmanned drones would make a difference and we wouldn't have to put troops on the line. Be sure to check out my supporting evidence as it is crucial to my argument. ;)
The debate started out civil, but when it's just a 1 on 1 thing, it's not on the books and you realize the person you're arguing with is to closed minded to even listen to a word you say, you stop caring about being respectable. Yes, I may have lost my temper but at least I had good reason to and am not ashamed to express anger when I feel anger. This man was already talking in a tone that would be considered hostile and was taking it very personally that I didn't love America and support every war they had ever taken place in, so I thought to myself: Fuck it, this man is incapable of civil debate, is already taking this personally and now wants me to thank him? I'd rather have a low point and speak my mind raw and clear than hold back and miss the opportunity to tell someone off that needed to be told off. Does that make more sense?
I don't have that much in common with Obama, but I agree with his statement during his state of the union address. Coalition building and diplomatic action is a much more effective way of fighting and it doesn't involve us getting dragged into another land which will (a real shocker) cause more turmoil in the region and create a similar crisis in the future. The United States needs to stop playing police officer and listen to the actual police of the world, the United Nations.
A service member was getting livid with me because I didn't think the Iraq war the greatest thing since sliced bread. He kept going on and on about how America saved the day, how he "truly saw" what happened there and told me I should be thanking him. To that I said "fuck you, I'm not going to kiss your ass because you went to play hero in a 3rd world country and got over a million civilians killed in the process, you should be ashamed of yourself and your country!" From the look on his face, he wanted to kill me, be he refrained. Instead he went on a tirade about how people like me "need to learn to respect those above us" and "honor those who serve the greatest country on God's great Earth." I guess I should have been a tad bit more polite, but fuck it, freedom of speech and all...
1 - There is an innumerable amount of ways to earn waaay more money than the average job position (Note: this may be limited to entrepreneurial mindsets)
Not everyone has the resources or skill sets to start their own business. Regardless of where someone may be down the road, that future entrepreneur is either going to have to survive off of government assistance, low wage work or debt until then. So while the poor may be able to become rich in the future (keep in mind, this is statistically very unlikely) they won't have enough income to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, not to mention paying for modern day necessities such as a phone, internet and car (you might not need a car if you live in an urban area, but that is evened out by higher rent) until they eventually get their break, and that could be years of waiting. It doesn't make sense to starve workers like this because of the notion that they may one day become wealthy.
2 - People are, in a way, just waiting for a handout if they do not even try and earn a living (self-employed) for themselves (hence premise #1); and if they're just waiting for the govt. to handout a job.
False. If you started your statement with "Some people are" instead of "People are" then it would have been plausible. We are only just starting to understand human nature, all we know for sure is that is that people are motivated by a variety of incentives and that not everyone has the same incentives or goals. If there is some sort of study that shows other wise I'd be very interested to see it. Further more, government assistance has requirements that must be met before benefits can be received, so not just anyone can waltz in and say "pay all my expenses."
3 - therefore, people sitting back and blaming the govt. for their financial problems goes unwarranted and irresponsible
Why can't people blame their country for their financial problems? If you happen to be born into a poor country where workers don't have to be paid enough to live and education for well paying jobs isn't made readily available how are you economic problems your fault? An absolute genius could be born in the wrong place at the wrong time and never get anywhere in life, why, because individuals don't have sole control over their fate. An individual is limited in what they can do by their environment, and if they are stuck in a particularly unfruitful environment, I can't see how it is out of line to blame the environment instead of the individual.