ddoyle00 said:
A good joke will always have a bit of truth in it. Lenin showed that bit in his counter arguments, but failed to make a point. Look guys, we are arguing the same point from two different views. Here is mine: People only very rarely get filthy rich by luck alone. It takes coordination, smarts, intelligence, hard work and persistence. People not in the same tax bracket either didn't have the same opportunities, didn't work as hard, were not as persistent, or didn't have the good business sense. The people with money can be compared to adaptation/survival of the fittest. The people with money have a much greater chance of surviving because of their skills and that gives them an advantage. Now the people without money will have to find other ways to survive and compete with those who have money. And we all know what happens to a species that cant adapt. Well, maybe not Stalin.
Now, you are arguing from a purely philosophical viewpoint and that is almost impossible to quantify. This thread will never get anywhere until we are both debating from the same point. Apples and oranges....biological and philosophical. All of my threads have been based on quantifyable and empirical evidence. I offer and explain proof for my statements. Even though I do this and now matter how convincing it seems, it wont do jack against an emotional arguments. Ive rehashed this point at least five times now. I cant make it any clearer.
It seems that you think some of the responses are emotional. I don't see it, especially not in my own. Could it be that you have no adequate response and want to claim that others are being emotional, compared to your cold hard empirical evidence, of which I see none?
And survival of the fittest is fine for the non-human animal kingdom. Man is superior to the rest of the animal kingdom. He does not have to compete for survival or the chance to reproduce like most of the animal kingdom. We have progressed to the point that we can have both without having to kill someone else. We compete, yes, but we don't have to compete to the death for anything. We are not required to hurt others to gain for ourselves, altho many do for the sake of competition. Usually, competition is good, except for those who knowingly hurt others to succeed. Success is good, but not as easily measured as you think. The lesser among us are not always envious of the success of others, as we usually have some measure of success for ourselves. Mine is not measured in dollar signs. Speaking of signs, I saw this on a billboard about 40 years ago.
No success elsewhere compensates for failure in the home.
Based on that, my wife and I are a wonderful success. We live well, without any of the in-your-face conspicuous consumption of our "successful" movies stars, but we enjoy what we have. It is all paid for, no one can take it away.
It is enough, for us. And our children and grandchildren love us. How do you quantify that and compare it to mere wealth?
And trust me on the procreation thing, the poor are very good at it. They do it for fun and entertainment, they do it for love, they do it for religious reasons, they do it for the sake of doing it. Maybe the rich have better health care and security, but the sheer numbers of the poor will outweigh whatever advantages may be denied them because they are poor. Some of us, yes I and my wife were poor, will crawl up the ladder of success even tho the rich and greedy who want more than their share of success are doing their best to drag the ladder up with them, less any of us poor get a chance to approach their high and mighty
self appointed status.:2wave:
