• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thoroughly sick of all things Occupy? OWS?

Are you tired of all things OWS?

  • No! We need 24/7 coverage until the Movement succeeds!

    Votes: 15 21.7%
  • Anti-OWS, but I like arguing about it.

    Votes: 6 8.7%
  • Pro-OWS, but I'm getting tired of arguing about it.

    Votes: 9 13.0%
  • Anti-OWS, sick of hearing about it.

    Votes: 22 31.9%
  • Not taking sides, just plain sick of it all.

    Votes: 9 13.0%
  • Other/Rootebega

    Votes: 8 11.6%

  • Total voters
    69
  • Poll closed .
Greed is a psychological problem. It can be prevented on a human basis.

Wrong. Greed is a natural impulse, and one which can be very beneficial in moderation and when directed toward productive means. Self-interest is what wins gold medals, starts companies, creates innovations and creates families. You will NEVER "prevent" greed, any more than you can "prevent" lust or sloth or any other impulse.

I'd be very interested to hear the methods you think would be useful in "preventing" greed in the human race.
 
0b5da144.jpg
 
it would be almost physically impossible for all people to get an equal start. the only way to do so would be to clone each and every person from the same donor and then "grow" the fetuses in identical artificial wombs.

I know it chaps the asses of many of the liberal crowd...but the plain and simple truth is that some people are born to be smarter than others. all the opportunity in the world is not going to make a guy with an 82 IQ equal to a guy with a 150 IQ.

This is real life you goofy ****, this isn't Forrest Gump. your kid is stupid and he can't be a shrimp boat captain.

Your right Oscar and thats the reason that the rights incessant whines that anyone that isnt successful is a parasite....some people dont have the means or the opportunity to be successful...period...thats why the 1% and their rhetoric have turned me off


This is where we run into trouble.

Everybody wants a decent standard of living. If you're American, when you say "decent standard of living" you mean by AMERICAN standards, not Somalian or Brazilian Favela standards.

Not everybody is able to achieve a decent standard of living on their own. They don't have the smarts, the social skills, the technical ability, the education... or the basic intellect and knowlege and aptitude to get the education. Work as hard as they may, they end up stuck in relatively menial jobs because that's all they can handle. That's Forrest Gump in real life.

I don't think any reasonable person is arguing that Forrest deserves the same lifestyle as a CEO, or a professional with a Doctorate, or even a barely-middle-class guy. Obviously success and hard work should be rewarded; education and innovation and enterpreneurship should be rewarded well.

But Forrest Gump, dim candle though he be, is still a human being (one of the movie's big messages I think, is that Forrest is morally and ethically better than most people despite his mental limitations) and deserves consideration as such. The Gumps of this nation still ought to be able to work and make enough money to afford reasonably decent housing, a reliable car, reasonably good medical care, all the basics of life in America (electricity, indoor plumbing, a phone... these days throw in some reasonable Internet access, you almost can't get a job without it), and maybe even a few small luxuries. It wasn't so long ago that a textile mill worker who didn't even finish high school could still afford to raise a family in fairly decent living conditions.

In recent years this has been getting harder. The cost of living is rising faster than what unskilled or semi-skilled labor gets paid. Families in the bottom half are struggling more than they used to, while seeing the top quartile living in luxury their grandparents never dreamed of.

If Gump works his ass off, he deserves a little piece of the American dream, even if he never will be a rocket scientist. A little help for the Gumps of the nation now might help prevent a full-scale armed revolt when it gets to the point that Gump can't feed his family on the fifty cents a day some would like to make his paycheck.
 
A true equal start which all those idealists dream about would have the competitors born to the same wealth class, with the same looks, with the same health, etc...

I agree ideally everyone would be born to similar wealth but certainly not looks health etc. That would require genetic engineering. Recent research in the UK has found that the poorest children are educationally 8 months behind the not poor by the age of 3 and the children from families with low educational attainment are 9 months behind those of high educational attainment by the same age. Research has also shown that the disadvantage is passed on from one generation to another

In 2005, research from the Sutton Trust1 suggested that social mobility
across generations has declined in the UK in recent decades, although
this may now have bottomed out. This study showed the following.

The extent to which poverty and disadvantages persist in some families
from one generation to the next is heavily influenced by education.
The passing on of disadvantage across generations is stronger in the
US and the UK than in Canada and a number of European countries
.
Unlike in the UK, in the US it has not worsened over time.
Children born in 1970 showed less mobility than those born in 1958.
This is reflected in an increased link between social background and
educational results. In particular, in the 1980s an expansion in
staying-on rates after 16 mainly affected better-off children.
By the 1990s, however, post-16 staying-on rates extended to more
disadvantaged families, although higher education expansion still
benefited mainly the middle classes. The consequences for social
mobility were mixed.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/campaigns/education/EducationBriefing120907.pdf

When we do not have social mobility we are not giving people an equal chance. Now while in an ideal society there would not be a dramatic difference in wealth there is today, there is at the starting off point. To create a situation with more equality would only require at the minimum creating some kind of system which allows the children to be exposed to a wider spectrum of ideas and activities than at the present, ideally also enriching the parents. In addition special nutritional help can be offered to pregnant women and to young children. Simple things like that to get the kids on track up to school age would be sufficient to get started. However it also has to be born in mind that if their parents are experiencing extreme stress as the poorest frequently are, that this will also effect the child's development so some kind of community help - which best would involve active participation rather than simply hand out, but which would improve the life of all would help.

The other things you mention - looks...hmmmmm bit superficial I think. Look to the inner person.

Health, yes it would be possible by making sure the pregnant Mum gets good organic fruit and veg and whatnot and the child too, to improve the child's health considerably. We are more and more finding out the relationship between diet in pregnancy and early life and health. That we can take care of.

Other illnesses - well that is part of life and life is a lot more than how long you live or how much you earn - or put it another way, equality of opportunity can only deal with the things which it is possible to change. To suggest we cannot offer the opportunity because of some things which nature presents is a red herring to ignore responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Forrest Gump made a gazillion dollars on Apple stock.;)
 
You don't think he might claim this due to political motivation, do you?

I think there's a definite ring of truth to it no matter what. The one thing I'd like to see come out of this is for those of us who did play by the rules -- i.e. went to work everyday, didn't buy too much house -- should be able to be made whole again at some point. It'd be nice to see the value of my house come back from the dead.
 
I agree ideally everyone would be born to similar wealth but certainly not looks health etc. That would require genetic engineering. Recent research in the UK has found that the poorest children are educationally 8 months behind the not poor by the age of 3 and the children from families with low educational attainment are 9 months behind those of high educational attainment by the same age. Research has also shown that the disadvantage is passed on from one generation to another



http://www.cpag.org.uk/campaigns/education/EducationBriefing120907.pdf

When we do not have social mobility we are not giving people an equal chance. Now while in an ideal society there would not be a dramatic difference in wealth there is today, there is at the starting off point. To create a situation with more equality would only require at the minimum creating some kind of system which allows the children to be exposed to a wider spectrum of ideas and activities than at the present, ideally also enriching the parents. In addition special nutritional help can be offered to pregnant women and to young children. Simple things like that to get the kids on track up to school age would be sufficient to get started. However it also has to be born in mind that if their parents are experiencing extreme stress as the poorest frequently are, that this will also effect the child's development so some kind of community help - which best would involve active participation rather than simply hand out, but which would improve the life of all would help.

The other things you mention - looks...hmmmmm bit superficial I think. Look to the inner person.

Health, yes it would be possible by making sure the pregnant Mum gets good organic fruit and veg and whatnot and the child too, to improve the child's health considerably. We are more and more finding out the relationship between diet in pregnancy and early life and health. That we can take care of.

Other illnesses - well that is part of life and life is a lot more than how long you live or how much you earn - or put it another way, equality of opportunity can only deal with the things which it is possible to change. To suggest we cannot offer the opportunity because of some things which nature presents is a red herring to ignore responsibility.

Putting aside the off topic content which is most parts of your post, you just discredited yourself that everybody should be born to equal wealth. In addition, you further discredited yourself when you said that genetic engineering should be required.
 
oh, they have the opportunity. they may not have the ability to take advantage of said opportunity but that isn't my fault. Life isn't fair. sorry, but it just isn't. some people are going to live better than others, that's the way it is, has always been and probably always will be.


Ok the ability then...the point is not all have the same shot for a variety of reasons....and its absurd to believe that everyone can be successful and those that are not...its because they are all lazy and parasitic...Sure theres a number that are lazy or drug addicted or have a variety of crutchs and dont even attempt...but they are certainly not the majority....and then theres the handicapped and the mentally ill....Society no matter what is going to have a percentage of its people that need help
 
For pete's sake, even your own President has admitted that the American dream has become out of reach for thousands of Americans. Get a grip.

Catchy phrase.....

I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news... but......

You still haven't answered the question....
 
I'm just glad that can't bring their tents the that park in NYC anymore. People need to go home and do something productive.

Like.... I dunno....

FIND A ****ING JOB!!!!!!!!!!
 
Ok the ability then...the point is not all have the same shot for a variety of reasons....and its absurd to believe that everyone can be successful and those that are not...its because they are all lazy and parasitic...Sure theres a number that are lazy or drug addicted or have a variety of crutchs and dont even attempt...but they are certainly not the majority....and then theres the handicapped and the mentally ill....Society no matter what is going to have a percentage of its people that need help

Often times its success, sometimes its luck...... Alot of it is luck....

We cant CHANGE luck, no matter what.
 
Putting aside the off topic content which is most parts of your post, you just discredited yourself that everybody should be born to equal wealth. In addition, you further discredited yourself when you said that genetic engineering should be required.

I never said any of this. I take it you have no argument so are just being argumentative and saying gibberish. The issue was the difference between equality of opportunity, something a meritocratic society like the US is supposed to be striving for and 'equality', something no Western society I have ever heard of has ever thought was a possibility. You confuse the two. You keep pretending equality and equality of opportunity are the same thing and now you are simply lying about what I said. :thumbdown
 
Back
Top Bottom