There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
You are right about business owners in that My father,Grandfather and Great Grandfather nexer went to College but were all successful businessmen. IMHO College is only worth it for vocational education -becoming a Doctor,Lawyer Engineer etc. Liberal Arts education doesn;t actually make you a better performer its just a way for employers to filter applications.
[QUOTE=Cephus;1063863795]That you fail to see it, does not make it so. Of course, I fully accept the idea of the American dream that 'anyone is able to do anything they put their mind too' I just feel this to be more of a pipe dream, than reality. As-long-as people continue to believe this, then 'competition' i.e. 'Capitalism' wins all day long. It is simply naïve to think that nothing is 'insurmountable'. You just haven't imagined the very worse it can be for someone, and multiplied that by 10, then you may touch on some empathy. Some kids are SO destined to fail, end up in crime, or dead--that the alternative is that insurmountable blockade called 'all things' stacked totally against them. That you may suggest the 'few' go on to get themselves '3-crappy jobs' to be in a position to eat, live in some crappy trailer park, is not really getting on; in any normative sense of the word.I honestly don't see it. I don't think there's any such thing as an insurmountable challenge, where someone cannot improve their situation.
.Sure, they might not become a millionaire, but they can be better than they started out
When someone is at absolute rock bottom, yes, I suppose anything can be classed as an improvement.
But NOwhere near as good, as a plush fee paying private school.Even a bad school is still better than no school at all.
WOW, you've covered a massive amount of ground here. ALL this can happen for a multitude of reasons. For example, dads doing hard time for murder, mum is spending the majority of her time on her 'back' to keep food on the table, 'you' are the oldest of four siblings, yes sure things don't look that 'insurmountable' because you've inherited what? Not the work ethic like yourself, not the normalcy of a stable family unit, nothing but a stack of attributes of the criminal kind.When these people drop out of school, when they get pregnant out of wedlock, when they try to have a family before they are financially ready for it, when they get involved in drugs and gangs and end up in prison, those are all things that are going to either negatively impact or ruin one's life.
See above. Rocket science may be not, but 'social science' very much so. If only things were as clear cut as you suggestThose are bad decisions to make. If you make good decisions, if you stay in school, if you don't do things that will ruin your chances, if you get a job and keep a job and work hard, you are going to be better off than if you didn't and if you pass those lessons on to your kids and they to their kids, then your family line is going to climb out of poverty. It really isn't rocket science.
Europe is in the midst of disaster, only, they do not realize.
Setting aside "legacy" admissions for a sec, these kids do better because their parents require it.
They may be predisposed to being.smarter genetically but thats a crap shoot.
Back to legacies, while they have an advantage at admissions time they still have to.perform. Otherwise they transfer to lesser schools.
You may be unaware of the lengths elite schools go to to find qualified disadvantaged kids. And money is never an object for them because the schools love to crow about it.
If you want to better the kids, then better the parenting.
Another problem is that Neo marxist teachers try and steer black kids into going to college and studying crap like 'Black studies' which give them no usefull skills at all wheras they would have been better off learning something taht would aqctually get them a well [paid professional job.
The problems I see with this position are two:Originally Posted by Cephus
1) What about the people who were financially ready, but who lost their asses in 2008 and are now doing anything to make ends meet? I've personally laid off not a few people who were making 50K+ (in the midwest--this was a good income, especially at the time), and who had been assured their jobs were safe (this was back in 99-00 following the tech bubble). Not all of them were able to get good jobs again.
2) This is a particular instantiation of a more general claim often made by conservatives, that the poor should do what fits their circumstance. Stated thus, it sounds reasonable enough-everyone should do what fits their circumstance, no?
Well, my answer is: not necessarily. I'm not sure that what a person ought to do is the only thing that does, or should, have moral standing in the matter. It seems to me that the reason societies exist in the first place is to ensure a certain basic living standard for all participants (the exceptions being spelled out in a society's criminal code). But the rules governing wealth distribution in a society are essentially arbitrary. When one part of a society has to start adapting certain aspects of their living standards, it strikes me as manifestly unfair. For example, the answer to the poor having a difficult time getting out of poverty is to "work harder." Well, how hard should someone have to work? If society owes a person literally nothing, then why in the world should the person owe anything back? It would be easier for the person to steal, murder, and pillage their way out of poverty, and, again, if no one owes the person anything at all, then why wouldn't this be fair? Why do the poor owe anything to those who owe them nothing in return? The exceptions in criminal code are for those who enjoy the fruits of living in society with others. When there are no such fruits, no consideration has passed from society to the individual, and hence there can be no binding agreement.
Perhaps more perspicuously: it's not fair or just for the poor to have to work very much harder than everyone else, or to have to give up the basic rights of such things as enjoying children (or simply sex), merely because they are poor.
Last edited by ashurbanipal; 10-15-14 at 09:17 AM.
I wonder if it is true that less successful people are more likely to over-generalize than more successful people.