[Business Insider] IT'S OFFICIAL: The Whole World Thinks Republicans Are Dangerous Maniacs Threateni - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;31235745]The moment you go out of the way to insult someone is the exact moment you lose the argument.[/QUOTE] To be fair, Amute did kind of insult her. [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Teracotta;31232892]As stated before, that was a generalization in line with the generalizations about Republicans and Democrats or Christians and Atheists. Neither is totally correct nor should they be. It's about finding a balance in between.[/QUOTE] Still doesn't answer the question, why would you even think that most poor people are poor by choice or because they don't try hard enough?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31235774]To be fair, Amute did kind of insult her.[/QUOTE] Not near to that extent. Calling each other brats and dipshits is par for the course, but going out of your way to string together insults as an entire section of your argument is too far. [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] And to actually add to the conversation, I'm a poor person who is having to work ungodly hard to dig myself out of the hole of poverty. Full time job, full time student. I'm still no closer to being "not poor," but maybe I'm not trying hard enough. Granted, it is anecdotal, but it does go a way to prove that Terracotta has no idea what she's talking about.

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31235465]Okay, in case anyone is to stupid, I've added shit to his post for better organization. A. I have ignored nothing. I took all points into consideration and decided they did not change my views. B. HumanAbyss is an imbecile. Not everything everyone does is selfish. Stop trying to drag other shit into this argument. C. I have voiced my opinion and the point of it many times, you are just to fucking retarded to understand. D. Stubborn brat? I give my two cents and you "attempt" to jump down my throat. You are a dumbass who doesn't understand what a brat is. If anything, a brat world be a child with a democratic ideal because they expect to be given what they wish. E. No shit, its my fucking opinion. F. You've refuted nothing, shut the fuck up. G. No, that's not the truth. You're a huge fucking retard. Die in a hole. If you're going to argur with someone try to be less of a dumbass.[/QUOTE] I never grew up poor or in a difficult situation but I know enough to fucking recognize the multiple variables involved in social class and poverty and the great difficulty that comes from rising out of poverty, etc. I have the perspective necessary to see why. You say you worked hard for your computer because you got a job and mowed some yards. What if you live in an apartment or public housing? There are no yards. Or a poor person does end up getting a job at McDonalds but they have to use that money to support their family rather than spend it on a gaming computer. What if they can't get good grades in school due to factors beyond their control? Literally everything you experience during childhood will influence your later life, personality, and intelligence which is why it's so hard to break the cycle. The average person born to a rich family isn't technically inherently different than one born to a poor family, however bad nutrition, use of drugs harmful to fetuses during pregnancy etc. all are much more common among poor families and influence the baby's health at first. Then it only gets worse Poor babies get less nutritional food, have less exposure to positive influences, their mothers have less knowledge of proper childcare or may not have enough money to afford the things they need, may not get the luxury of a full time caretaker, etc. By the time they get to adulthood where they are actually fully in control of their own lives, it's pretty much too late. This all influences the way they are in later life. There's hundreds of tiny variables all contributing to the development of the child. Breaking the cycle is incredibly rare. There are very, very few people who can literally start at the very bottom and rise to the very top no matter the situation and your arguments about poverty would make sense if, as Zeke said, everyone started on a level playing field. Richer families have generations of experience to build on when raising a child, are much healthier at birth, more often than not have much more familial support, better nutrition, etc. There are of course exceptions to this and there's no guarantee that the child will be as successful but it's the exception rather than the rule. In the majority of the time, you will die in the same social class you were born into. People like you are the worst. You have privilege and you don't recognize it. You can't grasp the other people's hardships and difficulties because you try to apply your own past or family's past to struggles you have no idea about. Like I said I can't begin to comprehend what it's like personally, but I can understand the various factors and influences that cause and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

^ hit the nail on the head

[QUOTE=RBM11;31236363]I never grew up poor or in a difficult situation but I know enough to fucking recognize the multiple variables involved in social class and poverty and the great difficulty that comes from rising out of poverty, etc. I have the perspective necessary to see why. You say you worked hard for your computer because you got a job and mowed some yards. What if you live in an apartment or public housing? There are no yards. Or a poor person does end up getting a job at McDonalds but have to use that money to support their family rather than spend it on a gaming computer. What if they can't get good grades in school due to factors beyond their control? Literally everything you experience during childhood will influence your later life, personality, and intelligence which is why it's so hard to break the cycle. The average person born to a rich family isn't technically inherently different than one born to a poor family, however bad nutrition, use of drugs harmful to fetuses during pregnancy etc. all are much more common among poor families and influence the baby's health at first. Then it only gets worse Poor babies get less nutritional food, have less exposure to positive influences, their mothers have less knowledge of proper childcare or may not have enough money to afford the things they need, may not get the luxury of a full time caretaker, etc. By the time they get to adulthood where they are actually fully in control of their own lives, it's pretty much too late. This all influences the way they are in later life. There's hundreds of tiny variables all contributing to the development of the child. Breaking the cycle is incredibly rare. There are very, very few people who can literally start at the very bottom and rise to the very top no matter the situation and your arguments about poverty would make sense if, as Zeke said, everyone started on a level playing field. Richer families have generations of experience to build on when raising a child, are much healthier at birth, more often than not have much more familial support, better nutrition, etc. There are of course exceptions to this and there's no guarantee that the child will be as successful but it's the exception rather than the rule. In the majority of the time, you will die in the same social class you were born into. People like you are the worst. You have privilege and you don't recognize it. You can't grasp the other people's hardships and difficulties because you try to apply your own past or family's past to struggles you have no idea about. Like I said I can't begin to comprehend what it's like personally, but I can understand the various factors and influences that cause and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.[/QUOTE] Hence a government should work to ensure those in poverty are helped out of it. Although a number of people are stuck in poverty with no social mobility depending on the nation they are in its much easier for people to move up the ladder.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31235612]No. Poor people do tend to work quite hard. Amute however seems to make it out that absolutely every poor person is born into their class, and has absolutely no method of improving their condition. The real case is that nowadays no such class structure exists any-more seeing that it broke down over the course of the preceding century. I also note that Amute and Terracotta are possibly taking things a tiny little bit too far.[/QUOTE] Except you haven't bothered to pay attention at all to my point, my point is, most poor people are poor because the rich keep them down, some can make it up, but it's by purse dumb luck. There are a group who do nothing to improve their condition, but they are few and far between, but wealth is a complicated thing, and you have to be a complete moron to think it's simple and easy to sway which ever side. [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31235774]To be fair, Amute did kind of insult her. [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] Still doesn't answer the question, why would you even think that most poor people are poor by choice or because they don't try hard enough?[/QUOTE] Oh Rubbish, it was a quip at most.

[QUOTE=amute;31237029]Except you haven't bothered to pay attention at all to my point, my point is, most poor people are poor because the rich keep them down, some can make it up, but it's by purse dumb luck. There are a group who do nothing to improve their condition, but they are few and far between, but wealth is a complicated thing, and you have to be a complete moron to think it's simple and easy to sway which ever side.[/QUOTE] You seemed to heavily imply that this was the case everywhere, and that the poor were completely cemented into their position.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31234309]Sometimes you start out crap and poor. (Like Andrew Carnegie or England in 1485)[/QUOTE] A good society won't expect its citizens to overcome severe adversity (nobody should have to be born into poverty) or be destroyed by tragedy down the line (nobody should be bankrupted for getting cancer) This doesn't even begin to touch on racial inequalities which is a whole new ball game

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31237113]A good society won't expect its citizens to overcome severe adversity (nobody should have to be born into poverty) or be destroyed by tragedy down the line (nobody should be bankrupted for getting cancer) This doesn't even begin to touch on racial inequalities which is a whole new ball game[/QUOTE] A good nation improves itself and the lives of the people within at the same time. A healthy happy person is a productive one who will work for their nation happily if provided well.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31237079]You seemed to heavily imply that this was the case everywhere, and that the poor were completely cemented into their position.[/QUOTE]Stop making implications, you fail miserably at them.

[QUOTE=amute;31238025]Stop making implications, you fail miserably at them.[/QUOTE] Perhaps it is more a case you are simply letting your angry take control of you whenever you post, as you have been hostile to a number of people in this thread in the belief you are absolutely correct and everybody elses viewpoint is completely and utterly wrong.

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31232578]Not really following what's going on but my opinion hasn't changed, nor has anyone else's(I think). People should get what they work for. If everything is just handed to them they're a burden to the community. HumanAbyss is an idiot.[/QUOTE] Indeed. Because you've never received anything ever [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Teracotta;31235465]Okay, in case anyone is to stupid, I've added shit to his post for better organization. A. I have ignored nothing. I took all points into consideration and decided they did not change my views. B. HumanAbyss is an imbecile. Not everything everyone does is selfish. Stop trying to drag other shit into this argument. C. I have voiced my opinion and the point of it many times, you are just to fucking retarded to understand. D. Stubborn brat? I give my two cents and you "attempt" to jump down my throat. You are a dumbass who doesn't understand what a brat is. If anything, a brat world be a child with a democratic ideal because they expect to be given what they wish. E. No shit, its my fucking opinion. F. You've refuted nothing, shut the fuck up. G. No, that's not the truth. You're a huge fucking retard. Die in a hole. If you're going to argur with someone try to be less of a dumbass.[/QUOTE] So you didn't read what I said, did you? Maybe I should rephrase what I mean in a manner you can read, oh, and go ahead and flame away buddy, it's only going to make me laugh. All acts have at the very least, some selfish aspect to them. Psychology is widely complicated and very rarely do you ever have one sole motivation for an action. To me, all acts have a selfish aspect to them. Please, flame on. You're posting like a real champion.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31238357]Perhaps it is more a case you are simply letting your angry take control of you whenever you post, as you have been hostile to a number of people in this thread in the belief you are absolutely correct and everybody elses viewpoint is completely and utterly wrong.[/QUOTE] Don't quit your day job, Freud. That was a legitimately terrible "implication" to draw from his statements and didn't further your conversation in any way. It's a simple exaggeration of what has been stated as a strawman, and in pulling this crap you violated 2 of the 4 Gricean conversational maxims: be relevant (one can read this thread thus far ignoring those two posts and lose nothing of what you've contributed in terms of information or ideas) and say no more than needed (anything said with no purpose is superfluous.) Whee, conversation bloat. Attack [I]arguments,[/I] not [I]people.[/I] Ball's in your court, I want to see you reply with an actual thought. [QUOTE=amute;31238025]Stop making implications, you fail miserably at them.[/QUOTE] And by the same token, you might want to actually say something relevant, even if it's just an assertion of what his asspull was, talking smack doesn't magically solidify your point. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31237113]A good society won't expect its citizens to overcome severe adversity (nobody should have to be born into poverty) or be destroyed by tragedy down the line (nobody should be bankrupted for getting cancer)[/QUOTE] There is a legitimate question of how well any society can prevent severe economic adversity (okay that sounds pretentious can we say "keep people from being broke as fuck") or insure its populace, though. I don't know that you could ever get a society which got everyone more or less medically sound for life without stomping on certain personal freedoms (e.g. diabetes linked to horrible but delicious foodstuffs or cancer and smoking), because the only cheap care for a lot of things is preventative care like, you know, not smoking.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;31240699] And by the same token, you might want to actually say something relevant, even if it's just an assertion of what his asspull was, talking smack doesn't magically solidify your point. [/QUOTE] I have made my points ages ago, Sobotnik doesn't know what the fuck he's arguing.