Ah, beat the odds. Nope. I'm not lucky nor are my children. They are doing the right things.
No doubt they are .. by the way .. are they among the small group of individuals in the U.S. who own the majority of the country's wealth (i.e. are they multimillionaires or better?)? Probably not, but I could give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way, as I said before it sounds like they are doing things right .. however, they
are lucky to have parents who raised them well and they
have "beat the odds"; if they are not multimillionaires the odds were
still against them, but more in their favor than if they were multimillionaires. I think that if the only people you spend time with are people who have, in your opinion, been successful ... then your data supporting your argument is flawed, i.e. the sample size is too small and you have not sampled any poor or extremely wealthy people. It would take many thousands of people to make a statistically significant argument that cites examples as proof of your argument. As of now, you only have an untested hypothesis. In cases where you have no reliable data, it is always best to speak theoretically rather than bring up sparse examples.
Not counting the current economic fiasco, times have not gotten worse and I hope you don't think your life is even close to those of the Depression Era. They are not. And, many of the men of that Era had to go fight a long war and then return home and make a success of it and they did. As I said previously, times today are not the best, but they were fine before and they will be again.
Again, I am not seeing how this is an argument against pushing for equal opportunity as we've defined it. Simply because things were worse at one time does not mean we cannot continue to try to make things better.
Yes, we do define equal opportunity differently. I did not bring up wealthy as the criteria nor did I really use it as a criteria. I believe that success is being self-sufficient and providing your family with all of their needs and some, if not all, of their wants. No one is guaranteed they will achieve millions and no one should be jealous or envious of those who do achieve it.
Exactly, no one is guaranteed millions - we never said this is bad. I think this may be another disconnect because I never suggested that people should be "
guaranteed" millions. That would be ridiculous .. people do not need millions to live without hardship. Instead, we are saying that people should start off around the same starting line or at least bridge the gap a little so a few do not have such an extremely
huge head start.
Of course you are a progressive.
Progressive defined: A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas
Google
I like new ideas ..don't you? I am sure the new idea that African Americans were not lesser people was a great thing for humanity. As is the case with many reforms .. didn't people believe the earth was flat at one time?
You know, I don't know about those progressives, their awful unreasonable .. why can't they just stick to the status quo .. no change is good ... LOL!
I did not say that your glass was half-full. I said it was empty.
Well that was awful nice of you
... clearly we disagree as I see a glass that has has 50% water and 50% atmosphere in it as being both half full and half empty .. this is the reasonable logical description of what exists .. I do not think any scientist would disagree .. I dunno, perhaps some scientists are not logical in their thinking, maybe it's just me .. who knows
Your extremely selective manner of replying suggests that you actually do ignore things, especially those that are hardest to argue against. You see, when one debates, his or her argument is strengthened .. hey I didn't make up the rules, so don't shoot the messenger
I know that equal opportunity exists and that it is up to the individual to make it happen.
Of course, your version of what equal opportunity should be exists, no one said that it didn't. Additionally, of course making it as far as one can is up to the individual .. I don't think anyone is implying otherwise .. I think you are mistaking making equal starting points as unfair, when in actuality, the individual would still be responsible for succeeding.
There is nothing that needs to change
Wow! I am glad there wasn't too many people with this kind of thinking around when the many helpful reforms were put into place ... the instant we start to become complacent with a system that could improve, we fall behind and miss opportunities to grow
People have to know that it is possible and ignore the nabobs of negativity, and practice the virtues that lead to success. It can happen, even if it might not happen for you.
Very true, as soon as people begin to be negative about positive change, we have failed. Practicing virtues when considering social reform is very important. Adequate social reform
may not happen during my lifetime; but it is encouraging to see good social reforms succeeding in other, more progressive countries. It appears we agree on more than you would like ...?