Old Blogger

033104 - Megan does not like me.
"Michael, I have read all of your posts and I must say, that you really come across in a bad light."

Well, I am surprised at that considering the vitriolic hate coming from (;>)] and Nicholas's keyboards. Is that perhaps because you agree with them, and not with me? Try switching our stances, and leave the conversational styles the same, and then tell me who comes off in a bad light? Remember who is calling who a poor hating fag hating fucking insipid prick, and then lecturing me on manners.

"I am only reacting to your words and not the words that others have said to or about you."

Well I refuse to be singled out in that manner, to criticize me for calling someone retarded while ignoring people calling me a fucking prick, coward, and threatening me with violence suggests an overt bias on your part. I'll take your constructive criticisms and better myself with them, and try to come off in a better light, but perhaps you should take a more objective look at what is going on in these conversations, instead of focusing primarily on me because I disagree with you.

"I have basically heard from you, that rich people are right, poor people are lazy and sitting around collecting welfare checks instead of working for a living."

Who said anything about 'right'? I never said that, again, a charachterization of my stance. If that is what you 'basically heard' from me, I think you need to read more of my posts, or read them more carefully. This is the same attitude, bias, and ignorance that has led (;>)] to call me 'fag hating poor hating' etc. I have said repeatedly that rich and poor can be defined either as material wealth or contenment, and people can find contentment at any social economic level. Does that come off in a bad light? I also said that all people are lazy, and that it hurts the poor the most. But I also said that it is not a bad thing, being lazy is what has given us the time to enjoy the things that make life worth living. Poetry, art, philosophy, entertainment, none of these things existed when all humans had to work 14 - 16 hours per day just to stay alive.

"I dont know your current financial situation, if you are doing well, thats great. Many of us arent doing well financially, and take umbrage to comments like "If you've worked your ass off but to no avail then you've made a poor choice.""

Maybe you do take umbrage to it, but I have worked my ass off on things to no avail, and who am I to blame, someone else? If I try to start a company, and it fails, who do I blame? Someone else? It might be tough and an ego blow to take responsibility for ones actions and failures, but if you plan to better yourself, and learn from those mistakes, it is something you must do, or you will make them all over again. And no one I know around me is doing well financially, they overspend, crank up their debt buying things they dont need, and partake in hobbies that prevent them from bettering their situation. They have no one to blame but themselves for making bad decisions. Who do you blame for your current situation?

If you worked hard, and made good decisions but were robbed of your success, thats a different story. If you were blindsided by a random and financially devastating event, sudden illness, severe injury, etc. thats a different story.

"Many of us have no other choice but to work our asses off to better our situation."

Of course, you either work your ass off to better your situation, or do nothing and not better it. That is what I have been saying all along. Where is it you disagree with me?

"Now your past few entries sound like the tone of someone who is both hurt and embarrassed."

Don't think my ego so fragile that the lame comments of Nicholas and (;>)] hurt or embarass me. My sense of self is not dependant on something so unimportant as the opinions of a couple of repressed violent attention cravers on a web forum. Frankly it seems they acquire their sense of value merely by dominating this forum. Good for them, I'll send them a cookie and congratulate them. As I said, I think a good discussion is possible, but neither of them are interested in one, nor probably capable, since they are both so used to flinging about crap like deranged monkeys and 'scaring people away with their intellect' in the process.

"Intelligent conversation doesnt always consist of pretty fifty cent words being tossed around."

Do they consist of threats of violence, fruquent insults, and a lot of swearing?

"Sometimes it gets heated and profanity is used. Im afraid that you'll have to get past it."

Do you see presidents swearing in their debates? Do scientists swear at one another when they have a disagreement? No, rational men are perfectly capable of holding rational discussions without resorting to ad hominem attacks (which are not rational) threats of violence, and gross generalizations and hand waving arguments. I refuse to partake in discussions of that manner, if those are the tactics that Nicholas and (;>)] use to dominate this forum and garner the praise and admiration they apparently have, then it is no critical thought forum I want to partake in. Its a forum of violence, anger, and petulance. The very fact that you DEFEND their use of such practices while attacking me for 'pretty fifty cent words' is evident that their tyranny has all ready taken root in the unquestioning admirers.

"You have made it clear that due to the anger you have sparked, you are above talking to certain people because of their use of colourful invective. Michael, with such highhanded treatment who wouldnt toss some tasty words your way."

Intelligent and rational people. Surprisingly, I thought I might find some on a 'critical thought' forum.

"NOw you have been repeatedly re-educated about how the real world works so may I make a polite suggestion?"

No I havent, in fact numerous people, such as yourself, have come on here and agreed with me, but said I was wrong anyway. Whatever. You yourself said that most people have no choice but to work their asses off to better thier situations, directly implying that if they dont work their asses off, they will not better their situation. Which is exactly what I have been saying. Are you suggestion your situation can be bettered through no effort on your part? Maybe that fairy will come by with a magic pumpkin and a glass slipper for you.

Anytime a specific point is up for debate in this conversation, it devolves into more name calling and generalizations.

"Please feel free to extract your skull from betwixt your angry little sphicter muscle."

Suggestion noted, I should hope that you, Nicholas, and (;>)] do the same.

Michael

032604 - Manners manners manners!
Well, whatever. There is obviously no communicating with Nicholas or [;>)]. You have made up your mind as to what I am, so you are all ready blinded to your own biases. Nicholas, perhaps you should try heading your own advice

7-Understand that no one, particularly not you, has all the answers. An Open mind can grow and grow powerful; a close one is stunted and weak. 8-A dearly held idea is frequently wrong

And [;>)] , you should note Nicholas's comment

"Having a strong conviction doesn't make you right, just convinced"

It's clear on this forum who feels the need to demonstrate their superiority to others. [;>)] has repeatedly challenged people about their accomplishments, Nicholas and him feel a good discussion is one that equates me to a flea and them to Bald Eagle. Nicholas, you have quickly dissolved any respect I had for your intelligence, you are clearly nothing more than a biased jerk like [;>)] completely unable, or unwilling to hold any rational discussions with anyone who disagrees with you. While I refer to mentally disabled people as 'retarded' and get blasted by you two, among other people, you two think nothing of calling me, among other things...

Fucking insipid prick
A cockroach
A right-wing Republican reactionary apologist
A liar
cheap fucks
intellectual midget
rat like soul and miserable character of a bile poisoned worm like you At best you are a piece of shit

Yet both of you turn right around and lecture ME on manners!!! [;>)]'s cousin is 'retarded' instead of 'mentally disabled' and I am a manner less ass hole, To them I am a bloated gas bag of a coward and a cheap fuck, yet Nicholas and [;>)]'s are the ones attacking *my* manners. Maybe if you two had some manners AT ALL, we could actually have a discussion.

" PS- Picking on Leather Sammie, Roxanne, Hunter, Walter and ( ;>)] shows that you are in desperate need of correction as you are unable to recognize through your blathering bullshit, minds and people that are superior to you."

I don't know what your definition of picking on is, but I hold the utmost respect for Leather Sammie for working hard to make a better life for herself and her children, despite [;>)]'s attempt to try to convince her that I think she is poor and that I hate her, and similarly for Hunter for overcoming all those incredible obstacles everyone here talks about but he lived through and making a better life for himself. Walter has now quickly escalated himself to the exalted position of the only one who is capable and willing to partake in a rational debate here. You two should take lessons from him. I don't know why people on this forum Idealize Nicholas, he has done nothing but demonstrated that he is an asshole, perhaps it's the continual threats of violence that him and [;>)] resort to. If anyone is 'picking' on someone its you two idiots who carry on disagreements like 5 year olds, quickly resorting to name calling and threats.

Typically when I disagree with someone, I make an effort to understand their position, and argue why the foundations of their beliefs are wrong if they are indeed wrong, or learn why mine are wrong if that is the case. Walter has at least made that attempt, and it seems we mostly agree, disagreeing only on the extent that laziness plays into perpetuating poverty. I hear no arguments or rational points from either Nicholas or [;>)], just a lot of hand waving and name calling and threats of physical violence. Is this often how you people disagree with others? No wonder this forum idealizes Nicholas, he is apparently the ruling despot around here.

" 1) Someone who shows great disdain and veiled hatred for the poor."

I have never showed great disdain for the poor, please demonstrate where I have or retract the statement.

Please present your logical arguments proving I have a 'veiled hatred for the poor'

" 2) Ignorant; to the written word, society and its functions, and the human condition; as well as your comprehension, and communication skills, since you STILL haven't qualified, quantified, defined, or made a point YET"

That's funny, because I would say the exact same thing about you, [;>)]. Obviously we disagree on many things, including what constitutes a point.

" 3) A right-wing Republican reactionary apologist, not a judgment...an observation."

As I have said, I am not a right wing republican any more than I am a left wing liberal. You should withhold your characterizations of someone until you know enough about them to make valid character assessments. You know nothing about me, but we all know you are quick to anger, hate people who disagree with you, and apparently get very frustrated at your inability to argue calmly and coherently.

" I didn't hear God or fag, until you mentioned them."

That's funny, because a few posts before, you said...

"The real scary part is that they let assholes like him and Roy VOTE. And yeah, you can count on them both voting for the Shrub. Just remember,...that these heartless, *fag hating*, poor bashing, child abusing, hawkish, God loving, post-Newt, right-wing, neo-con, Republican apologists, all know what's best for us."

Not only am I poor bashing and fag hating, but I also abuse my children. The real scary thing about this comment is that you said "...they let assholes like him and Roy VOTE" Perhaps you'd prefer a totalitarian dictatorship where you rule over everyone else, or a single party authoritarian system where your party kills or imprisons those other people who you don't want to vote. I would love to live under that system [;>)].

With that, I may continue to partake in this discussion, but only with Walter, who is a respectful person and actually wants to do something about world problems. That is, unless Nicholas and [;>)] are actually interested in having a discussion.

Michael

032304 - Time for some baiting of the political correctness police...
Sammy said:

""1) a specific disability, mental or physical, making them unable to make the effort to better themselves or even recognize the desire to."
Truth: These people receive social services, and in many cases, are "richer" than most

"I don't know EXACTLY whose words or opinion the statements above are, but you are obviously ignorant."

They were [;>)]'s words, as he has illustrated, note my response to that ridiculous comment of his was:

"Truth, many homeless people are mentally ill, receive no help, and are not capable of recognizing their need for help nor helping themselves. I certainly wouldn't consider these people 'rich' unless you consider some fantasy world they live in mentally as rich. No doubt rich doesn't mean monetary wealth to everyone, I have never suggested it does. The entirety of Po Bronson's book is an argument for that very thing, and many of the quotes I have posted are in that same theme"

Sammy, it is clear who was making the absurd generalizations here, it was [;>)]'s, Since his retarded cousin is happy, all disabled people live rich happy lives? Whose generalizing?

There are of course multiple definitions of the word 'rich' it has primarily throughout this discussion been used in reference to monetary standard of living, not happiness with ones status in life. It is fine to use it either way as I have stated multiple times. A person who desires nothing more than he has is very rich, if he desires what he does not have, he is poor, and must work to get what he doesn't have, or must give up that desire, either way he becomes rich.

I point out the ridiculous nature of his generalization, and you end up agreeing with him? Many people are disabled, mentally or physically, and incapable of working toward making their lives better. Many of these people receive very little help, and are physically incapable of helping themselves. Lets be very clear here, there are two distinct ways that 'rich' is now being used in this discussion. Rich = happy or rich = wealthy. [;>)] is happy to mix and match the two in the middle of a discussion as long as he gets to call me a name out of the swapping.

" A society really can be and should be judged by how they treat their poor, their ill, their elderly and their children."

And if a society should toss all rich people in jail, how would you judge it? Quite simply, a society should be judged on how it treats all its people, not just one group.

" In a country as supposedly rich and wonderful as the United States, the way the "lesser" as you put it in this society is deplorable."

[;>)] asserted that 'there are no poor people in new England' while in another post, asserting that even the poor in the US have a much better life than those in most of the world. Sammie, I suggest you take a look at the 'delporable' conditions poor people in the US live and compare those to people in, say North Korea, Vietnam, or Burma. Additionally, by [;>)]'s own logic, we could also assert that, just as there are no poor people in New England, there in fact are no poor people in the US (when compared to most of the rest of the worlds standard of living)

I invite you to read popular author and columnists Christopher Hitchens comments on North Korea

"All films, all books, all newspapers and all radio and television broadcasts are about either the Father or the Son[Kim Jong Il]. Everybody is a soldier. Everybody is an informer. Everybody is a unit. Everything is propaganda...Children are drilled to think of Japanese and Americans, in particular, as monstrous...The old justification for the Stalinist forced-march system was that at least it led to development. But even in Pyongyang, the capital city which is reserved for approved citizens, one can see that this excuse doesn't work. Neither does anything else; the place is stalled and hungry and subject to constant blackouts. There are no cars on the streets; there is no construction except of tawdry shrines to the Holy Family. A very small window of dollar bribery has opened up in recent years, but there's nothing to buy and no black market. Corruption at the leadership level is exorbitant, with palaces and limos and (a special obsession of Kim Jong Il's) megalomaniacal movie projects...I saw people scavenging individual grains from the fields and washing themselves in open sewers. On the almost deserted roads, animals do a good deal of the hauling. Domestic pets are nowhere to be seen. Perhaps most have been eaten, for the fact is that North Korea is a famine stat...Nobody knows the death toll-the best guess is between 1.5 and 2 million-but in addition a generation of physically and mentally stunted children has been "fathered" by the "Dear Leader." Well-attested rumors of cannibalism have filtered across the border to China, where a Korean-speaking minority has lately been augmented by refugees so desperate that they will risk shooting in order to brave the river. A system where you can't live but you can't leave is the definition of hell...deserted towns, empty factories, wandering and neglected children and untilled fields...the country's once productive coal mines have been allowed to flood, and that there are no pumps that can be brought to bear" (from -http://www.chosunjournal.com/worst.html)

" To address Michael's opinions, I am a very smart woman with college degrees as well as many specialty certificates that were obtained for certain positions I held in the workplace. I raised 3 children alone. No welfare, no child support. I worked 2 and sometimes 3 jobs in order to give them what they needed. I have never been what you would call wealthy. I have always been able to pay my bills. To put forth your unqualified, unquantified and unsupported theory that poor people are poor because they are lazy and unmotivated is a reprehensible and egregious disservice to those of us who have busted out asses our whole lives to "better" ourselves."

I don't follow the logic of your statement here Sammy. You tell us a great story about how you worked your ass off to make a better life for yourself and your kids, working 2 or 3 jobs, yet assert conversely that most poor people are not poor because they don't work their asses off. You are a living example of what I keep saying, if you want to make a better life for yourself, put the effort into it. You have done that, and it is commendable, I admire you for doing that, as has Hunter and [;>)], who is now able to give jobs to poor people, opening even more
opportunities.

I think where your resentment lies with me is the assumption that you think I might consider you poor, and thus you hard work has not paid off. Quite the contrary, from your description I certainly wouldn't consider you poor. Do you desire a lot of things you don't have...Or are you happy and content?

Did you make this better life for yourself and your children through sitting around and watching TV? Loitoring and partying all the time? It certainly doesn't seem like it.

" How dare you, Michael? How dare you come into a public forum and make gross generalizations without even making a feeble attempt at showing the routes by which you arrived at your conclusions?"

Unlike [;>)] gross generalization that because his retarded cousin is happy that all people with disabilities are happy? I'll try to tell that to my uncle who might be dying with diabetes at this moment.

" but please try to refrain from identifying your opinions as facts unless you have some data with which to support what you say."

Have you backed up the assertion that most poor people (financially
poor) are poor because they have had to many attempts at achievement blocked through various hardships or obstacles, or that a minority are poor because of this reason (as I contend) I have asked Walter as well if he has some empirical evidence to back this up, I would be interested in seeing some data. If you know of none, then you opinion is no more valid than mine, and no less of an opinion.

As I have said to Walter, most people are lazy, including myself. Many poor people are lazy, as are many middle class people, especially children born to middle class parents. Many rich people are as well, its just that being lazy hurts poor people a lot more. But any socioeconomic class has the CHANCE to make their life better through effort, through NOT being lazy, as you have done.

Cheers to you for what you have accomplished, and [;>0] for the jobs he has created. I hope that your children will appreciate the hard work you have put into giving them better lives.

Regards,

Michael

032304 - More on Rich and Poor
>Michael, these are the reasons I think you are ignorant. And these are the only reasons:

>"While there are surely some people who are poor as no result of their
choices, the vast majority of 'poor' people are poor because they do not make any effort to raise thier standard of living beyond the most basic rudimentary efforts, like buying lotto tickets or partaking in get rich quick schemes." and "Their plan is simply to not work, vote for democrats, and have them give them money."

>If you still believe in these items, even after all these discussions,
then I will continue to think that you are ignorant.

I do still believe the general veracity of that statement, if for its contextual veracity as opposed to its veracity content wise. In other words, the sliver of examples I give for rudimentary efforts to raise ones standard of living may not be all of them, or even the majority, but there is no doubt what socioeconomic class perpetuates the 'get rich quick' schemes. And no, there is no plan to simply not work and vote for democrats to give them money, you and your cohorts are doing that for them, convincing them they cant get ahead, and to vote for democrats, who'll give them money. Or would you suggest poor people vote for republicans?

"Yes, I agree with you that opportunities exist. My only point in bringing up those social factors is to tell you that opportunities are denied because of social factors. Is the opportunity still there after you are denied the first time? Yes. Will it still be there after the 50th time? Yes. Will it be there after the 100th time? Yes. Does it make someone lazy if they give up after the 150th time?"

YES, but it seems you attach a derogatory meaning to 'lazy' where I do not, as I have said, I am lazy, and most people are lazy. It seems that we primarily disagree on how many people are poor because of lack of effort and how many are poor because they finally gave in after facing hundreds of obstacles, set backs, racism, etc. If you have any evidence to present that suggests which is a more accurate description of reality I would love to see it.

"I don't think so. At that point, someone has to step in and help them. If you continue to scream and yell "there is still hope!!" without doing anything to help them yourself (however way you can), then you are the lazy one."

No doubt, I completely agree, hopefully someone can come in and help them even before they reach the first obstacle, instead of waiting till the fiftieth. But never should you suggest they are without hope, because that is untrue, and never should you just hand over money. As I have said, I am very lazy, and disappointed in how lazy I am, when I read the stories of life long labors people have endeavored through for something they believed in, I know I am lazy, because I know I am physically capable of putting in that same amount of effort. I understand how much work people had to do just to stay alive throughout the majority of human history. By sitting here arguing about this online with you, I am being lazy, I could be out doing a million more productive things, as I am sure you and [;>)] could be as well. The only problems that exist in the world are ones that no one has tried hard enough to solve. There are still poor people, so you are lazy as well.

"You have to realize that this argument stems from the fact that you stereotyped every poor person in the country."

I have stereotyped every single person in the country, I have not singled out the poor. Everyone can make there life better through effort, will you now suggest that I hate all people? Furthermore, A stereotype only becomes as such when it is proven wrong. Most people are lazy, it just hurts the poor a lot more.

Additionally, you have yet to show what portion of people are poor through laziness and what portion actually have encountered 50 difficult obstacles. You assume the majority are facing a great number of obstacles, I assume that the minority are, and that the majority aren't extending any effort or enough effort to raise their financial status. Until one of us presents evidence backing up our cases, it's hardly fair to call me ignorant when you may be the incorrect one. We have all ready read many stories about people working hard, starting from nothing, overcoming great obstacles, and significantly raising their financial status. Oddly enough, everyone who has done exactly that, i.e. not been lazy and became 'rich' (happy or monetarily wealthy) though they are evidence in support of everything I am saying, still assert that most poor people are poor because they face a lot of obstacles instead of not working hard to not be poor. Can someone tell some personal narratives about impassible obstacles they faced when trying to make a better life for themselves?

"We are still discussing the definition of "opportunity" because you failed to read the first two definitions and chose to focus on the one that matches yours. Did you read the first two definitions?"

* A favorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances.
* A favorable or suitable occasion or time.
* A chance for progress or advancement.

"Now, focus on those first two items Michael. In that regard, these people have no opportunity. PERIOD."

I am aware of this, and have all ready agreed, and understood from the start, that poor people face more obstacles, e.g. not having as many advantageous circumstances, etc. Yet, they still have the third option, a CHANCE FOR PROGRESS OR ADVANCEMENT. What do we still disagree on enough to continue this discussion?

"Now, you can take the last definition and fight it all you want, but the bottom line is that these first two definitions don't apply to your logic."

'Don't apply to my logic?' As we have discussed from the first time you posted your definitions of 'opporunity' 'THERE IS NO DENYING THAT THERE IS STILL A CHANCE' that is all I have been saying all along, and it is something you agree with.

That's right, the bottom line is the don't apply. AS long as there exists a chance, then effort can raise ones standard of living.

"And Michael, don't act like you're some sort of savior by preaching that there is HOPE. None of us here are throwing out the idea of hope. You keep preaching that all we need to do is motivate poor people and it will solve their problems."

No, but it will help solve their problems, Convincing them they cant do it without help will not help to solve the problems. That is what we have been doing for fifty years, and like I said, hows that war on poverty going?

"Keep cheering and cheering and everyone will eventually get out of poverty."

No, as I said, some may not want to leave poverty, or expend any effort to do so. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, anymore than someone who is middle class shunning the social pressure to get rich$ just for the sake of getting rich$.

"You have to realize that being "lazy" or being "unmotivated" is also a symptom of the various social factors that I've thrown out at you."

And you have to realize that they are also a result of choice.

"If you eliminate most of the social factors, I guarantee you that most of the poor people will no longer be poor."

"You can't simply instill hope without providing some help."

I agree, but you cant not instill hope either, which is what you are doing.

"And you can't merely provide help without teaching them how to maintain that way of life."

Of course, because all poor people need some rich know it all to come in and tell them how they should live there life? Why do you have to 'teach' them, what are you teaching them, exactly, if it isn't the hard work and responsibility needed to maintain a higher standard of living?

"You need BOTH of them. Like I said, if you still think that the vast majority of poor people are poor because they are lazy and don't make any efforts, then I will continue to think that you are ignorant."

And until you present some evidence suggesting otherwise, I will consider you ignorant for basing your ideology on something that doesn't not have empirical justification.

Michael

032104 - A wealthy inner life
"According to the wise sage Michael, this is why people are "poor", a term he has still yet to quantify."

Quantify means to assign a numerical value to, it does not mean to define. As I had said many times, you can define poor as youd like, I suggested poverty level yearly income of below. If that is not sufficient, we can add "One who is unhappy, insecure, and a malcontent." (doesn't malcontent mean unhappy?)

It doesn't matter, if one is unhappy and insescure, they can become happy and secure by some effort. If one is poor monetarily, they can become non-poor by effort. So however you define poor, the gist of the argument (that people can become non-poor through effort) is still the same.

""1) a specific disability, mental or physical, making them unable to make the effort to better themselves or even recognize the desire to."

"Truth: These people receive social services, and in many cases, are "richer" than most"

Truth, many homeless people are mentally ill, receive no help, and are not capable of recognizing their need for help nor helping themselves. I certainly wouldn't consider these people 'rich' unless you consider some fantasy world they live in mentally as rich. No doubt rich doesn't mean monetary wealth to everyone, I have never suggested it does. The entirety of Po Bronson's book is an argument for that very thing, and many of the quotes I have posted are in that same theme.

"2) they are content with their standard of living (many people are content, in lower, middle, and upper class incomes) and thus do not have the desire nor want to expend any effort to climb the income bracket ladder as has been pointed out, in the US, even poor people live pretty well compared to the rest of the world's poor."

"Truth: Contentment IS wealth"

Truth, the definition of contentment does not have the word 'wealth' in it. Dictionary.com defines them as

Contenment

The state of being contented; satisfaction.
A source of satisfaction
Contented - Desiring no more than what one has; satisfied

wealth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wlth)
n.

1.An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
2.The state of being rich; affluence.
3.All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.
4.A great amount; a profusion: a wealth of advice

Now, rich, on the other hand, can frequently be used in the qualitative manner you suggest wealth is. I myself frequently refer to the 'rich internal life' when talking about people's personalities. I do not think they are imagining themselves to be rolling around on piles of money. But to say they have a 'wealhty internal life' doesn't have the same connotation, to me at least, that 'rich internal life' does.

Desiring no more than what one has is not 'wealth' it is contentment, happiness, or satisfaction. But regardless, this is evidence of nothing more than your usual effort to change the subject. It is pretty obvious that there are different contextual uses of Rich and poor (of poor health, for instance) To act now as if you had been arguing one meaning of Rich (satisfaction, happiness) while I had been arguing a different (wealth, monetary value) is absurd. Its clear from the start you were referring to the acquisition of wealth, as I was, when referring to raising ones standard of living.

For instance, in your second post to me, you said:

"If to become rich, does that mean do as rich people do? Such as Ebbers, Kowzlowski, or Lay? Criminals are criminals, no matter what your background is."

Are you suggesting that Ebbers, Kowzloaski, and Lay were 'rich' because they were content, and not because they had a lot of money?

Some more examples of where you were obviously using 'rich' to refer to financial status.

"just like rich people can inherit their wealth and be lazy bums"

"than the rich in nice suburbs will probably ever have to face"

"If you are rich and break the law, first time you get a fine, second time you get a fine and probation, with the possibility of community service, and the third time, THEN you might actually go to jail."

**"Rich and poor are seperated by one thing. Thier money."**

"so when you are rich and hire accountants and financial advisors and attorneys,"

"It seem to me that what you are saying is, that to become rich, you must be motivated by greed"

"A rich person, he can drag out a case...because HIS attorney has been paid a retainer and gets a nice hourly fee"

It wasn't until your fifth or six post where you started talking about multiple meanings to rich, where you said "You first have to define "rich". I have known many single welfare mothers who where "richer" than many successful businessmen"

Now you try to act like this is what you mean by rich all along.

This seems to be your typical tactic, [;>)], turning everything into a semantic debate. As you do through the rest of this post, which is basically a post where you just tried to make any possible way a word could be used differently than the manner it has been used throughout this discussion. As in your next point:

"4) They are not content, make the effort to climb the income bracket ladder, but face Xn obstacles and give up."

Truth: Who "gives up"? The thing about obstacles is: THEY STOP OR IMPEDE YOU.

Give up has multiple meanings as well. I could be trying to learn to ride a horse, fall off once and go 'ah, I give up' I could be trying to climb a wall, fall off and say 'Ah, I give up' and never try to climb it again. That is what I am talking about by 'give up' If a wall is impassible, that is a different situation. Walls are either passable or impassible, as are impediments or obstacles. If they are passable, they are difficult or easy to pass. If they are difficult to pass, they might require more effort. Note, impede means to SLOW DOWN, STOP is different than slowing down. Giving up is facing an obstacle, that might either stop or slow you down, failing to get past it, and not trying anymore.

Back to point 3, you said:

"3) They are not content, but make little to no effort to climb the income ladder."

"Truth: Yes, when the ladder is blocked, and they can't reach the bottom rung."

Are you asserting that there are no people who actually desire to be in a better situation but really don't do anything to try to be in that better situation.

You are reverting back to the principle of ALL CHANCES ARE BLOCKED which is not what I am discussing here. Whether the ladders is 'blocked or not' does not matter if the person has no desire to reach for it, they will never find out.

"5) they are not content, make the effort, face Xn obstacles, do not give up, but make bad decisions."

Truth: "Bad decisions"? This must mean: "Get screwed".

No, that is not what I mean by bad decision, I mean, for instance, which we have DISCUSSED MULTIPLE TIMES, that bad decision is in reference to someone working there ass of in a non-pragmatic endeavor, such as striving to be a professional athlete, mime, or actor. These are bad decisions to pursue as career choices, and rarely result in success even after a LOT of hard work.

"7) they are not content, make the effort, face Xn obstacles, do not give up, make good decisions, and are in the process of saving money, paying off bills, going to school, etc."

"Truth: They are driven by GREED"

By saving money, paying off bills, and going to school, one is DRIVEN BY GREED!!!! Well, I guess [;>)] true motivations come out, he simply wants everyone to be poor, because if they aren't, they are obviously driven by 'GREED'!!! And greed is EVIL! What exactly do you mean by this statement? Is there something wrong with saving money to pay off bills and go to school? You accuse me of hating all poor people, you apparently hate all successful people.

"To quantify the word "rich", I would say: One who is happy, secure, and content."

Quantify, again, means to assign a numerical value to. If you were to Quantify 'rich' it would be something like $100,000 /yr or 4x median income, or something like that, not 'happy, secure, and content' That is a definition. There are plenty of definitions to 'rich' But, as shown above, you have clearly been using it in reference to financial status.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rich

"To quantify the word "poor", I would say: One who is unhappy, insecure, and a malcontent"

Poor, also, has many definitions. But to Quantify poor, you would have to assign a numerical value to it, like $15,000 / yr, or 1/4 median income.

Some definitions of poor from Dictionary.com

adj
1)Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions.
2)Lacking in a specified resource or quality: an area poor in timber and 3)coal; a diet poor in calcium.
4)Not adequate in quality; inferior: a poor performance.
5)Lacking in value; insufficient: poor wages.
6)Lacking in quantity: poor attendance.
7)Lacking fertility: poor soil.
8)Undernourished; lean.
9)Humble: a poor spirit.
10)Eliciting or deserving pity; pitiable: couldn't rescue the poor fellow.

n.
11)People with little or no wealth and possessions considered as a group

You probably meant to use the word Qualify, which is to describe the qualities of, instead of Quantify.

Michael

032004 - The Return of Walter
>Michael, read this again. Please. This is what I wrote: "I highly suggest visiting a real ghetto. The simple fact that you have not "thankfully" seen a ghetto does not necessarily invalidate any of your arguments. You don't have to go to a ghetto to see this, but visiting one might help you realize that social factors such as corruption, racism, inequality, ignorance, oppression, and discrimination actually still exist."

>Then you replied with, "I'm sorry, did you say ignorance? You're not
saying they're stupid, now, are you? Cause when I said anyone was ignorant, all the sudden I was calling them stupid. Any one versed in logical debate should be well aware of the difference between 'ignornant' and 'stupid' or 'unintelligent'. "

> How about I use those words like these? "Michael, you are ignorant,
stupid, and unintelligent."

Well, those sound like an ad hominum walter, and I expected more from you. However, ignorant is a more objective term, but here you seem to be using in a broad sense, instead of applicable to a specific item, like say, quantum mechanics, which I am quite ignorant of. What am I ignorant of, everything?

" You feel as though that if you cried out to everyone in this room "YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY!!" you'll all of a sudden going to inspire hope to everyone. Face it Michael, you do not realize that "social factors such as corruption, racism, inequality, ignorance, oppression, and discrimination actually still exist.""

YES I DO REALIZE THAT!!! It's common sense! The fallacy is that you assume those two statements are dichotomous, that you CAN HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY _WHEN_ 'social factors such as corruption, racism, inequality, ignorance, oppression, and discrimination actually exist.'

See, I agree with you, that those factors exist, do you agree that, even in the face of those factors, opportunities exist?

Lets be reasonable about this, no doubt for a few people no opportunity exists, they may have mental problems, a disability, whatever, and are subject to all the negative social factors you mention above. Then there are people who are competent and able, but also face those social factors. Then there are people who are competent and able, but face no social factors against their rise. The only social factor those later people face is their own inactivity, their own choice to not do anything. For the competent and able people who face many hurdles, they still MUST choose to try to overcome them, if they are lazy, they definitely will not, since they won't even try to face them. Maybe they try once, face a hurdle that knocks them down, then give up. Maybe many are successful after facing that first hurdle, and go on to make a better life for themselves. Maybe some face two instances of specific opportunities denied, but still make it after going after a third. As I have said many times, new immigrants to this country face all the same hurdles that poor people do (they are poor, after all) and a significantly larger percentage of them make it out of poverty level and go on to lead middle class lives, while still some of them go on to be rich.

For the umpteenth time, I know these factors exist, I know they make it difficult, etc. etc. But the chance, the opportunity to better oneself, is not absolutely denied to anyone, as you have ALLREADY Admitted. You said

" * A chance for progress or advancement.

>"The gap between our argument is that the first two definitions apply
to my logic and the last one applies to yours. Of course, everyone has a chance. As long as you are breathing, you have a chance. True, no denying that"

See, you said 'True, no denying that' and I agree there are many difficulties poor people face that not poor people don’t, so we agree. Why are we still discussing this?

Lets try to make this more objective, what makes poor people poor

1) a specific disability, mental or physical, making them unable to make the effort to better themselves or even recognize the desire to.
2) they are content with their standard of living (many people are content, in lower, middle, and upper class incomes) and thus do not have the desire nor want to expend any effort to climb the income bracket
ladder) as has been pointed out, in the US, even poor people live pretty well compared to the rest of the world's poor.
3) They are not content, but make little to no effort to climb the income ladder
4) They are not content, make the effort to climb the income bracket ladder, but face Xn obstacles and give up.
5) they are not content, make the effort, face Xn obstacles, do not give up, but make bad decisions.
6) they are not content, make the effort, face Xn obstacles, do not give up, make good decisions, but are felled by some random catastrophe that was completely unavoidable or un preperable
7) they are not content, make the effort, face Xn obstacles, do not give up, make good decisions, and are in the process of saving money, paying off bills, going to school, etc

Now, I welcome anyone to present any other scenarios arguing why poor people are poor. Surely there are some slight variations here, some people face few obstacles, and some face many, but the point is made. In only ONE of these cases does lack of effort not play into it, that’s the very first one.

Now, if I am so ignorant, as so many people are ready to claim, I am more then ready to learn about some of the other scenarios that describe why poor people are poor. Lets hear em? And then, we can address each one, one by one, and try to come up with the best scenario to give these people the most opportunity to better themselves. However, many still wont, because many will be happy with what they have (not all middle class people are working their asses of to be multimillionair's, are they?) And many wont want to put the effort into bettering their situation. Thus, there will always be poor people, does anyone here disagree with that? Of course, the lives poor people live are getting better and better, and poverty is relative to the wealth of a nation, more prosperous nations have their poverty level people living better lives then less prosperous ones. In 50 years 'poor' will be what middle class is today.

" What I'm trying to tell you is that those social factors exist, and until we eliminate them all, opportunities will continue to be denied to ANYONE AND EVERYONE"

I have agreed they exist, obviously where we differ is if ALL OPPORTUNITIES are denied to ANYONE AND EVERYONE. You have all ready acknowledged that there is always SOME CHANCE, there is 'no denying that' as you said. Do you now deny that? 2nd, I would make sure to here your answer to the previous question, even if we removed all those social factors making it more difficult for people to make their lives better, WILL THERE STILL BE POOR PEOPLE?

" And it has nothing to do with a particular race. Opportunities are constantly denied because of these social factors and if you still need me to list them out for you, then I will fully understand that you are either sheltered or just brimming with hope or just want to look the other way"

No, I do not need you to list them out, I have all ready seen them, all ready agreed they exist and all ready acknowledged they serve to help keep poor people poor. You say again 'opportunities are constantly denied' again, the simple question is ARE ALL OPPORUTNIES ALWAYS DENIED TO EVERYONE, yes or no? Again, you have said they are not, so I don’t see why you keep harping on this point we all ready agree on.

" You're a great cheerleader Michael. I hope you continue to work hard and promote positive energy. But unfortunately, I feel that "hope" is not what people are looking for in order to be successful in this world"

Well thanks, as I said before, I think most people are lazy, including myself, and until I prove to myself I am not, I will continue to think as much. But that’s fine, not everyone wants to be a CEO, most people just want to live a comfortable life, raise kids, have a few hobbies, and go on vacation occasionally.

But to say that 'Hope' is not what people are looking for? They don’t want hope? Well, you, [;>)], and Roxanne have certainly taken that away from them by convincing them that there is nothing they can do to better their lives. Now that hope has all ready been almost completely eradicated from poor peoples minds, (since your ideas are the prevailing mindset) when will we see that large rising up out of poverty? Oh, wait, now that you have poor people convinced they have no hope, you have to convince everyone else that poor people have no hope, so as to enact government programs that will give them the opportunities so frequently denied to them or so difficult for them to get. But what happens when they still don’t TAKE those opportunities to better themselves? Middle class people have MILLIONS of opportunities to better themselves and face few 'denied opportunities' yet few make the effort beyond the most rudimentary ones. Since I disagree with you as to how much of the problem is lack of effort and how much is lack of opportunity, I, to you, Roxanne, and [;>)], stand in the way of making poor people have better lives!!! No wonder you dislike me so, and [;>)] thinks I 'hate' poor people. Well, the question is easily solvable, anyone have any statistics that attempt to quantify how many people are poor due to lack of effort, and how many are poor due to lack of opportunity, and how many are poor due to both? Until we see such statistics, we will just be arguing our biases, Until we have the data that will make us able to base our worldview on reality, we might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Yet I still find it surprising that by merely suggesting poor people could make their own lives better, I am accused of HATING ALL POOR PEOPLE!!! I would like to see the logical argument justifying that one.

Premise: All people who suggest poor people can make their own lives better hate poor people
Premise: Michael suggested that poor people can make their own lives better
conclusions: Michael hates poor people!!!!

Wow, what logic!

Yet I will still take issue with your approach Walter, you are still arguing that poor people should basically give up, since it will be so difficult for them to not be poor anyway, why should they even try? Instead, you should say, as I would, Yes, it will be difficult, trying, hard. You will face many obstacles that stand in your way, but you are a well motivated, hard working, intelligent human being, and as such, you can overcome great hurdles. Which of these arguments will get more people out of poverty? Well, you and the liberals have been making your arguments for decades, how is that 'war on poverty' going anyway? You think that if you just make that right opportunity, that everyone will see the light and rise up out of poverty, all the while you are telling them that they are incapable of working hard to achieve goals. Do you not see the contradiction? Why don’t you tell them they are capable of working hard to achieving goals, while still trying to give them as many opportunities as possible?

"What we need is change. What we need is constant proof that opportunities will always be there. And you are correct in saying that it's up to the individual to make the change, but it's also up to other individuals to help those that they can."

But nobody can force them to take the opportunities that are given to them, can they? We can help them to our hearts content, but they still must make that choice.

" What I would like to see is for those who are rich to extend their time, opportunities, resources, to those who need it most and to those who are qualified"

Sure, as long as they voluntarily do it. I would also argue that we should stop telling poor people that they are helpless, and that they will continue to be poor until some rich person comes along, like Cinderella, to give them a magick pumpkin, or that robin hood will come buy, and give him what he has stolen from the rich people.

" Drop the Ann Coulter books Most people aren't hopeless nor are they lazy."

I don’t read Ann Coulter, but most people are Hopeless, you have all ready eradicated that hope from them. And most people are lazy, including me, and probably most people on this forum. But as I have said, if you are content with who you are where you are, you can be lazy. Relax, and enjoy your life.

"And you know, I read some paragraphs about this book that you consistently bring up and I can't help but notice that most of the people who make "life changes" in the book already have a pretty sweet job."

Well, that’s what the book was about, primarily. But Ana, the Cuban refugee, started from nothing and worked hard, made herself wealthy, then gave it all up to run non-profits, which she later despised for the government programs perpetuating poverty. OR Deni, the Native American Indian, who started on a poor reservation and worked hard, eventually becoming a multi millionaire, who then went back to the reservations to do everything he could to give them more opportunities. I shudder to think what would have happened had Deni or Ana read one of yours, Roxanne's, or [;>)]'s posts, perhaps they would have given up all together, and just sat around complaining to their friends how hard it is to get anywhere and how the government should send em more and bigger checks. I shudder to think how many people who might have worked hard and risen above poverty now haven’t because they have been convinced to be hopeless, convinced that no matter what they do they cant better themselves.

> As far as I can tell, money isn't the source of happiness and being rich or poor doesn't make a difference as long as you enjoy what you do. The main idea of the book is to ask "What should I do with my life?" The book further asks, "It's how we hold ourselves accountable to the opportunity we're given."

>See Michael. You keep arguing the first part of that quote, which nobody has disagreed... and others including myself are arguing the last part of the quote. On another analogy you posted, I agree that we should teach them all how to fish, and not just hand them a fish. We can teach them to fish, but what do we do when all they have our tiny guppies swimming on a small lake? What good will showing them HOW to fish when there's no bass, crabs, shrimp, catfish available to them?

>Nevermind, you have an oppportunity to fish, so it's ok!"

But you aren’t arguing the latter part, you are arguing that there is no opportunity. I have been arguing that people should hold themselves accountable to the opportunities they DO HAVE, you three are the ones asserting they have none. Even though you have admitted they do, you seem to be backtracking now implying they do not have, at the very least, some chance, or opportunity to better their lives.

If there are no fish, you don’t teach how to fish, you teach them a different useful skill. Like how to conduct oneself in a professional and courteous manner, how to fill out applications, résumé's, etc. How to behave in an interview. You teach them that if they work hard, make good decisions, they can have a better life. But, again, the presumption here is that they can not do anything unless WE HELP THEM, you must teach them something, to fish or whatever. I see no where in your comments where they decide to take it upon themselves to learn some skills. Libraries don’t cost anything.

But, Instead, you are teaching them to have no hope, that they are incapable of bettering their lives, and are helpless. If you convince someone of those things, what do you THINK they would do?

Michael

032004 - Who's Angry?
I will take the time to respond more to your point later, but first you said

"You are one angry little man, aren't you?"

Who the heck said I was angry, lets look over the forum...

"I ain't politically correct, motherfucker."

"I want to know, why do you hate poor people so much? Are you jealous of some ghetto livin' "trash" that has a nicer car than you?"

"Are you jealous of the PR's that are fuckin' your girlfriend?"

"What the fuck is your problem?"

" ain't wasting no more time on you and you pedantic, snot-nosed, loathing, intellectual dishonesty"

"So fuck you."

"I have been nice so far, ...Consider your self warned"

"Okay Mikey, now you are starting to come off like an asshole"

"Thirdly, don't EVER presume that you know me, or what I would do fuckstick"

"One real good peice of advice here son, don't go quoting you fucking gurus. Po Bronson wrote his fucking book"

Who said these things??? That would be [;>)] How come he isn't an 'angry young man' (or old, if the case may be) The person who actually says multiple angry things garners no notice from you, why is that, because he agrees with you? I guess you aren't angry as long as you agree with Roxanne. What exactly have I ever said that you interpreted as being ANGRY?

Michael

032004 - [;>)]'s blesses us with his wisdom:

"Po Bronson is a hack."

You are a hack

"Social Darwinism is a warped theory based on a flawed premise."

Whose talking about social Darwinism, did someone bring up Nazism? Did someone suggest it's ok to kill someone because you are stronger than they? No, what's with the absurd red herrings? Typically such statements are signs of someone's inability to actually argue their point.

"And Michael is too ignorant to understand this."

I admit to being ignorant in many things, but I am fully aware that social Darwinism is 'based on a flawed premise' I am not a social Darwinist, and I despise any attempt to use Darwinian concepts out of context. Besides, who the hell was talking about social Darwinism, or are you just too ignorant to rebut my points? If you don't want to try to rebut my points, that's fine as well! Just say so.

"One thing in life is certain...human nature. There are good aspects to this nd there are bad aspects to this. Racism. Hatred. Favoritism. Opportunism. Greed. Dishonesty."

You take every opportunity possible to change the subject. How about addressing some of my comments and points, or just be done with it and say you don't want to talk to me anymore.

"Life isn't fair, and the playing field ain't even."

*yawn* like we haven't both said that and agreed to that point half a dozen times all ready.

"The game is fixed. It's fixed to serve the haves, not the have nots."

If you say so, yet every human being on this planet lives a better life than humans did 50 years ago, and they lived better lives than humans did 100 years ago, on and on. Today, all people of the world live better lives, longer, healthier lives than every before.

"It's not fixed socially, it's fixed economically."

I seem to remember making about three or four points which you have not responded to. Why should I respond to yours, when you never respond to mine? And fixed can have multiple meanings, implying it is 'weighed' in favor one way or another, or it is absolutely impossible for it to go one way. Which way is it fixed? I seem to recall that multiple times you have said it is not a level playing field, this would imply a weighted fixed system. Yet you haven't asserted that ALL OPPORTUNTIIES FOR ADVANCEMENT ARE DENIED, instead suggesting *some* opportunities are, but leaving the statement open to the possible interpretation that you meant ALL opportunities are. When I asked you to clarify this, you ignored it, just like every other effort I have made to clarify or rebut your position. What exactly are you doing in a critical thought forum anyway?

"In Vietnam Michael, you aren't going to see the real ghetto, you insipid, stupid fuck. You are going to see people trying to cater to a "rich" American tourist. You would like to think they are being "resourceful". No stupid. They are trying to survive."

What the heck are you talking about? I would like 'to think they are being resourceful'? Don't presume to know what I think of Vietnamese people, or what I plan on doing or where I plan on going in Vietnam. I certainly wont be hanging out in tourist trap spend all your money here to help perpetuate the murderous north Vietnamese government Saigon, er, I mean 'Ho Chi Minh City'

"Where are you from? New England? They don't have any serious poor people there."

'They' don't even have 'poor' people there? Wow. Where are all the liberals crying about lack of class that where hanging around on this forum before? THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE POOR PEOPLE THERE? I'll be sure to tell that to the next poor person I run into that he is obviously mistaken, as there 'arent any' poor people in New England!

"You don't even realize how easy you've got it."

Yes I do.

"What color are you? White?"

What does my color have to do with the validity of my points, points which you continually fail to rebut.

Why don't you just come out and say 'Nothing you say is relevant because you are white' Whose racist?

"Have you ever even met a nigga straight from da 'hood?"

Don't know, if I did, he/she might not have introduced themselves as 'Hi, im a nigga straight from da 'hood' Do 'nigga's straight from da 'hood' often introduce themselves to you in that manner? I know for sure I have met at least one, George Simmons was his name, he asked me, albeit incredibly politely, for some money just this past Sunday night. He said he grew up in the ghetto, was shot four times, survived, and now has seen the light, so to speak. He was staying at the local YMCA. I asked him if he was looking for work, and he said no, he was just glad to have a place to live now and is hoping to get a Color TV next, but he needs money to buy meals. I asked him why he wasn't looking for work, and he said 'To be honest with you brother, I don't know. I don't want to lie, I don't know why I'm not looking for work' He informed me he was waiting to get disability for being shot (from whom I know not) I presume it was some gang related violence. Since me and my friends just left a bar where we were hanging out and chatting with two friends of ours that are Cambodian, I told him about the plight the people of Cambodia had to endure during the last two decades (for graduates of public school system, Cambodia suffered the worst genocide as a percentage of population in recorded history, best estimates suggest that between 25% and 33% of the population was killed, starved, smashed (the term the Khmere Rouge preferred) Major metropolitan areas were burned down, anybody with money was shot, anyone with a western education, anyone who could speak multiple languages, was a doctor, a teacher, or even had glasses were killed.) Telling him about this, I could see tears welling up in his eyes, much as I did the first time I read about the Cambodian Holocaust (this article -
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP6.HTM) Given the obstacles many people in the world ACTUALLY DO FACE, like the people in Cambodia then, and a good portion of the worlds population today, HE, just as me, HAS IT EASY today in the US, so does anyone of any ethnicity or nationality compared to how people in the rest of the world (primarily the non-industrialized west have it) So WHY was he not looking for a job trying to better his life? He had no answer, I gave him $5, walked away, looked back and saw him asking the next guy who walked out for money. Why are you so ready to point out how easy I have it in the US, while pointing out how horrible other countries are, AT THE SAME TIME, arguing that he doesn't 'have it easy' Compared to 85% of the world, he sure is hell does. Even if poor, a minority, and having the cards stacked against him, he is still WAY better off here than anywhere else in the world ('here' being post industrialized western constitutional market based republics, not specifically the US)

"Puff Daddy grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood. He ain't nothin' but a fool, tryin' to be street. You don't know shit about street, and you are to intellectualism, what P. fuckin' Diddy is to street. A sham."

Funny that you should say that when you make no effort to rebut my points, except by obfuscating, trying to change the subject, hand waiving, and insisting, as if the intensity of your convictions somehow actually made them more valid. Whatever. Clearly you are not willing to partake in a rational debate. You are to rational debate what Pol Pot was to Cambodian health and well being.

"I would suggest to you that you take some classes in psychology and human behaviorism, before you try to speak on the subjects."

*yawn* I am sure everyone else is 10x more bored with our 'debate' them I am. I have taken 'some classes in psychology and human behaviorism' and yet, I disagree with you!!! Shocking, I know.

"You have to actually KNOW something to form a valid opinion,"

Yet you have trouble acknowledging the existence of my allegedly invalid opinions, let alone making any effort to show they are invalid. I am all ears, though all I hear is ranting, raving, rhetoric and name calling. Did they teach you that in those psychology and human behaviorism classes you took?

"and all that you have shown that you know is how to parrot Po Bronson's book, and make incredibly distasteful, and ignorant comments on poverty."

You keep saying that, but just because you say it doesn't make it true, I assert that you are the one making distasteful and ignorant comments on poverty. Readers can make up there own minds as to who is making a more compelling case.

"I guarantee you, when your lame ass perception of the world is actually immersed in the REALITY of the world, you are going to have a hard time trying to rectify the two."

Oddly, I would say the same of you.

"I ain't politically correct, motherfucker."

*sigh* Clearly I have struck quite a chord with you. Why so much name calling, anger, and animosity? Perhaps you could try to reclaim your dignity and say "Sorry Michael, I strongly disagree with what you are saying, and these issues are important to me. As such, I get emotional charged when faced with opinions I strongly believe to be untrue. I feel there is no convincing you of the validity of my worldview as an accurate description of reality, or if there was it would take too much effort for either of us to expend." Of course, I believe my worldview to be true probably as strongly as you believe yours to be, yet we both probably try to base our worldviews on as accurate a description of reality as possible, so obviously our information differs, or one of our filters is too based. The point of such discussions is not to try to convince the other guy you are right, its to try to come to the most accurate and objective description of the real world. That is my point, anyway, not sure what your point in partaking in such discussions is.

"I want to know, why do you hate poor people so much? Are you jealous of some ghetto livin' "trash" that has a nicer car than you?"

Who the hell said I hate poor people? You just love to make up positions of your opponents to try to discredit their arguments. I don't hate poor people, I quite like all people (even you, even though you are so hostile) I am the one arguing that poor people are the greatest untapped productive resource in the world, you are the one arguing that no matter what they do, they will allways be poor. Who is degrading them? Who is looking down upon them? I am quite happy with my 160,000 mile car, I do not base my sense of self worth on competitions with others, as it makes me a slave to their values instead of in command of my own.

"Are you jealous of the PR's that are fuckin' your girlfriend?"

!!! What the hell are you talking about!!! This is absurd! Lol. ?. ?. What? Who are the PR's? Were you drunk when you wrote this response? Anyone else here utterly confused as I am with these comments?

"What the fuck is your problem? You STILL haven't made a point. You just want to be contrary, and talk shit about other people."

I have made many points; you obviously don't feel they are points. Looks like the only one who wants to talk shit is you, about me. Perhaps you could argue why they are not valid points, instead of just ignoring them and calling me names. What is your problem, exactly? Seriously, were you drunk at this time? On Crack maybe? Had a long night and haven't had a good nights sleep in a few days maybe?

"Well you know what Mikey? I ain't wasting no more time on you and you pedantic, snot-nosed, loathing, intellectual dishonesty."

Whos being pedantic here? Who is trying to have a reasonable discussion and who is swearing and calling people names? Is this what you typically do when people disagree with you, you tell them to fuck off?

"So fuck you."

Ooohhhhhhhh, ouch!

Well, I don't think anyone on this forum will miss our little discussion one bit. I am certainly surprised at the tone you have taken, but no doubt this is because you feel very strongly about this issue. As I said last time, we have both argued enough to make our relevant points known to the readers, so they can make up their mind. Yet again, I will try to refrain from responding to you, especially if you response continues to degrade in quality as they have been recently. I suppose your next one will just be all name calling and all swearing. Don't bother, please.

Michael

031904 - We still mostly agree
Walter said:

"I appreciate your responses Michael, but it seems as though you didn't even read half of my previous post. Either that or you actually agreed and have conceded them. At any rate, I will take this time now to respond to your questions and comments."

Thanks, and I appreciate your courteous manner. It seems though the crux of OUR disagreement, like mine and (;>)]'s is that you disagree with what you thought I was saying, and I disagreed with what I thought you were saying.

>"Again, you are only pointing out that it may be more difficult for a
poor person to get ahead, but you have yet to prove that ANY opportunity is DENIED to them."

>Before I begin, let me give you the definition of opportunity. I went
to dictionary.com and found this:

* A favorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances.
* A favorable or suitable occasion or time.
* A chance for progress or advancement.

>"The gap between our argument is that the first two definitions apply
to my logic and the last one applies to yours. Of course, everyone has a chance. As long as you are breathing, you have a chance. True, no denying that."

And that is all I have been saying, there is always a chance to better ones condition.

" But how do you explain the first two definitions? "Favorable" or "advantageous" circumstance. The examples I have listed in all of my posts say that those people have unfavorable or disadvantageous circumstances so in that regard, the opportunity does not exist."

I have been acknowledging all along that it is more difficult for poor people to get to be not poor than other people who aren't as poor, any time that objection was raised. I challenged any objection about 'opportunities' that seemed to imply poor people were actually DENIED the opportunity to better themselves, but once I realized we weren't talking about denied opportunities, I acknowledged that the opportunities aren't the same, I have never thought otherwise.

>"The solution to this problem is that those who have more advantageous
situations should try to provide as much opportunity to those who are in an unfavorable situations."

>"Yet millions of immigrants come into this country with nothing, and
work their way up to middle class status in a few years. What doors did they exploit? The only difference is they didn't have millions of people telling them that no matter what they do they will remain poor, which is what you are arguing. It's also known as a self fulfilling prophecy."

>"The argument was never about middle class. The argument was becoming
rich. And as I've said many times, until we define "rich" and "poor" in terms of net worth, we are going nowhere."

But all the exact same arguments apply to being rich. To be rich, look at what middle class people do, and don't do it. To be middle class, look at what poor people do, and don't do it. To be rich, look at what poor people do, and don't do it. To be poor, look at what rich people do, and don't do it.

"I actually agree with you that you have to work hard and be motivated to become rich, but what you persistently argue is that everyone has the same opportunity."

I never argued that, as I said above, anytime someone suggested that they didn't, I agreed. Even now, (;>)]'s tries to still pull that card out.

as you can see from an early response to (;>]{), we said

>"Second, yea, there are instances where poor people do stupid shit. But
it should also be noted that poor people also aren't afforded the same opportunities as rich folks"

To which I responded: "Everybody keeps saying this but nobody is specifying what opportunities are specifically denied to 'poor people'. Schooling? Jobs?"

Instantly I was asking for what opportunities they were denied. I received no direct response to that line, instead (;>)] said

"The adversity that the poor face in ghettos and poor neighborhoods are much more harsh realities, than the rich in nice suburbs will probably ever have to face."

Where I responded: "No doubt about that, and it just means they will have more difficulty in getting to that middle class world, and may require more effort in reaching it, but it does not mean they CAN'T. In all your objections, you have still yet to show that poor people are denied the opportunity to better their lives. "

There is no need to rehash this over and over again, I have never claimed a level playing field, nor not acknowledged that there are different and fewer opportunities for the poor to better themselves. I have claimed they are not DENIED the chance to better themselves (which you agree) and that the statement 'To be rich, one should look at...(etc. etc)' is true.

>"While there are surely some people who are poor as no result of their
>choices, the vast majority of 'poor' people are poor because they do
not >make any effort to raise their standard of living beyond the most basic >rudimentary efforts"

"And not only that, you maintain your point by saying that poor people are poor because they are lazy."

Yes, most of them, but not all. There are some who are held back by random uncontrollable circumstances. Many are poor from bad decisions, but may be hard workers, as I have stated repeatedly. And most middle class people are only middle class because they are lazy, and most people are ignorant because they are lazy, and most people never make any effort to better themselves beyond the most basic social requirements because they are lazy. Nothing new there. I am lazy as well, If I had worked hard enough, I could have cured cancer by now, cured aging, obesity, and poverty. But these things still exist, I am not working hard enough to solve them, nor is anyone else. 98% of the industrialized worlds productive Capacity is spent on gossiping about celebrities and watching survivor reruns. Very few people _aren't_ lazy.

"I have never argued that there is no chance to be middle class. I am arguing the fact that some people have no chance of being rich."

Sure, but why do they have no chance, because the opportunity is denied them? Or because given a large enough sample, shitty random things will happen to good hard working people (cancer, for instance)

"I've followed it up with examples that you have clearly dismissed so I suggest reading them again."

What did I 'dismiss'? Again and again I have agreed over and over again, even going back to my very first post I said

>>"While there are surely some people who are poor as no result of their
choices, the vast majority of 'poor' people are poor because they do not make any effort to raise their standard of living beyond the most basic rudimentary efforts,"<<

"As far as immigrants today who own franchise stores or their own mom/pop stores, a great percentage of those owners have received their stores based on the fact that they knew somebody."

Really, do you know this for a fact? Is there a study that was done suggesting this? The immigrants I have talked to, especially from India, were ecstatic that they only had to wait two weeks and fill out a few pages instead of two years and a few hundred pages of forms to start a business. If this statement is true, I would be interested in seeing evidence to back it up.

"You cannot deny the fact that connections, in addition to the qualities that you have listed, have allowed them to be where they are today."

I will deny that connections are needed in *all* cases, as you seem to imply, or even the majority, unless I see some evidence suggesting that. Also, 'connections' must be adequately defined.

A family of Albanian immigrants move into the 1 bedroom apartment below my families apartment, there were six of them, all adults, living there. They opened a pizza restaurant, which I frequented even before I realized who the owners were. I befriended them through frequent visits and only came to realize they lived in the same house I once did when I invited them to my family's annual fireworks party on the river. They revealed they lived very closer to there anyway, and subsequent discussion revealed they lived in the same house that I did, only after I moved out, but when my best friend (who is also poor, single, and has 3 children, and is currently opening a non-profit shared coop day care center, where lots of single mothers who are friends take turns watching each others kids for the day) was living there. I have been planning on having lunch there again; I shall inquire about what 'connections' they had.

"That connection that they have is an opportunity - a chance - a possibility - that they too can have the opportunity to be rich. And tell me Michael, how do you buy a store if you have no money or collateral or being backed up by someone who has money?"

I can have my friends father retell his story of coming from Greece with no money and speaking no English, he got work, worked his way through college, eventually saved up enough to open a restaurant, and with that saved up enough to buy a hotel franchise. What's preventing that now except insane anti-immigration laws, mostly perpetuated by the democrats. Hunter yet again relayed a very sincere and relevant story about someone starting with little to nothing and working their way up.

"I totally agree with Hunter's statement, "None of us are perfect and sometimes it just takes a little positive influence from a local neighbor or a friend to help a person in his journey through life..." If we had more people who will actually provide an opportunity to those in need, then this would all be a moot point."

Indeed, in which case I applaud (;>)]'s effort to hire older people and people from the ghetto who are willing to work for their money. Unlike spoiled rich kids, who think jobs are owed to them. But convincing 'those in need' that they are in need through no fault of their own will not make one single one have a better life, will it?

"What we need are more people and corporations who will extend this kind of opportunity to those who are qualified to do the job. And if those opportunities were denied because of laziness, then fuck those people."

I like the last quote in Po's book.

" " 'They want to find work they're passionate about. Offering benefits and incentives are mere compromises. Educating people is important but not enough- far too many of our most educated people are operating at quarter-speed, unsure of their place in the world, contributing too little to the productive engine of modern civilization, still feeling like observers, like they haven't come close to living up to their potential. Our guidance needs to be better. We need to encourage people to find their sweet spot. Productivity explodes when people love what they do. We're sitting on a huge potential boom in productivity, which we could tap into if we got all the square pegs into square holes and the round pegs into round holes. It's not something we can measure with statistics, but it's a huge economic issue. It's a great natural resource that we're ignoring.' The tone in the room shifted. To my surprise, people agreed with me. The value in their companies came from the employees who were passionate about being there. The extra effort came from them. The new ideas came from them. I didn't tell this audience anything they didn't know. I only reminded them of it. In other words, with the wind now at our faces, it's impractical to settle for less than a life we love" pg 364"

When/If my company is successful, I will do what I can to hire anyone who shows that wonderful spark of competence, regardless of their ethnicity or cultural background, I all ready find myself keeping a close eye out for people that show that spark of competence.

"But don't preach the fact that opportunities like those exist as if they were growing on trees."

I didn't', but it's not like people are trying to pick them like they are growing on trees. My friend (the one whos father owns that hotel) runs the restaurant there, and can be damned if he can find a decent employee that comes in consistently on time, doesn't complain about working, takes responsibility for their actions, and even has a remotely professional demeanor. There are plenty of jobs one can start, work at, earn money toward larger goals, and build a better life. We don't need millions of (;>)]'s, (though the more the merrier!) we need people who want to work, who don't act like a job is owed to them, arent content with glorifying violence and false ego's, aren't sitting around waiting for government to solve the problems and create the jobs, and people who don't consistently convince them that they are poor through no fault of their own, it is a self perpetuating system.

"As far as my reference to other countries, I was pointing out that there are better opportunities in the US than in some countries. The standard of living here as compared to countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Africa, and many others are much higher. I don't remember seeing anyone living on a mountain of a trash dump in any city in the US. I don't remember seeing an industry of 10 yr old children being sold to prostitution here in the US. These are just a few reasons why they are willing to risk their lives of moving to this country because being "poor" here is "rich" to them. "

I am well aware of the standard of living in other countries, but immigrants don't come here to live off welfare, they don't risk death and 'free education and health care' in Castro's Cuba to live off welfare, they come to work and make a better lives for themselves and everyone else in the process. Even the poor in this country have it great, compared to the rest of the world. Most people in those countries you mentioned would love to have the CHANCE to die from cancer, instead they'll die from senseless violence or malaria or dysentery by the time they are 40.

"The term Cinderella in my book is not meant to be negative in definition. To me, they are the underdogs who have prevailed. And from what I remember, she lived happily ever after. Cinderella, on her own, would not have made it without receiving help from other people"

Yeah, the damn fairy and her magic pumpkin and glass slippers. Most immigrants make there own slippers and magic pumpkins. That is why the story is insulting, Cinderella did nothing to better her own condition, all she did was dream and complain, and bam, some magic spell is cast, and all here worries are cast away! Its offensive because it presumes some magic will happen that will Wisk deserving people into a better life.

"And people in this country do not get rich without receiving help from other people. If you think that you alone can become rich without the help from someone, then you are either arrogant or naive."

It depends on how you define 'Help' When someone buys something from you, they are 'helping' you become rich.

"I admire Hunter for sharing his story. I think it's great that he persevered throughout that part of his life and he never gave up. But I can also say that he didn't do it on his own. God forbid if his neighbor cop wasn't there to save his sister. God forbid if his father wasn't shot to death instead of being beaten. God forbid if Hunter had to work, provide shelter, and food to his family all by himself. How then could he have paid for college if all his money was going to providing for his family? I am not belittling Hunter's contribution to his life, but for anyone to say that he did it all by himself would not be fair to those who helped him along the way."

But it was Hunter who chose to continue on his path after each of those incidents, it was Hunter that did not give up or give in, that did not sit back and say 'It cant be done' It was hunter that made the choice to overcome those obstacles and to persevere, not those other people. They could have still helped, and he could have still chosen to give up. Give credit where credit is due.

"And as far as whether or not I think Caroline's statement is right or wrong, this makes it even more obvious that you failed to read what I wrote in my previous post."

No it doesn't, it is still the originator of the disagreement. To not be poor, don't do what poor people do, yes or no?

"And Michael, to be honest, we actually agree on most things. But what I really hate about most of your arguments is that you have stereotyped every poor person who live in this country. You have labeled them as lazy, unintelligent, and now, fat."

No, as I was saying from the outset, only the majority are lazy, none are 'unintelligent' that's your term, not mine, I have used 'ignorant' because it has an entirely different meaning and connotation. And most poor people are fat, just like most men are taller then women. Do you disagree with that? Do you assert that poor people aren't much more likely to be obese? Have you not been reading the newspapers that are crying about the obesity epidemic, 'especially among the poor'? This is primarily because its more expensive to eat healthy.

"It's very Ann Coulterlike. Not only that, you truly believe that they have the same opportunity as everyone else."

I do not believe they truly have 'the same' opportunity as everyone else, as I have acknowledged when that point is raised and it was made clear that the arguer was not stating they are DENIED opportunities.

"I highly suggest visiting a real ghetto. The simple fact that you have not "thankfully" seen a ghetto does not necessarily invalidate any of your arguments. You don't have to go to a ghetto to see this, but visiting one might help you realize that social factors such as corruption, racism, inequality, ignorance, oppression, and discrimination actually still exist."

I'm sorry, did you say ignorance? You're not saying they're stupid, now, are you? Cause when I said anyone was ignorant, all the sudden I was calling them stupid. Any one versed in logical debate should be well aware of the difference between 'ignornant' and 'stupid' or 'unintelligent'.

I will be traveling to Vietnam this time next year, is that Ghetto enough for our concerns? Its far more poor, corrupt, brutal, and tyranical than any city, neighborhood or street in this country.

Michael

031904 - Megan jumps in, guns blazing
Megan said:

"Holy crap. I can't believe what I just read."

I know, (;>)]'s comments are hard to believe!

"Are you serious??? "Poor people"? How the hell are you defining "poor people"?"

How would like like to define them?

"Of COURSE there are people who fall at or below the "poverty line" who are there of their own accord (drugs, laziness, some sort of random chip on their shoulder)."

Then one shouldnt do what those people do if they dont want to be poor, correct?

"But you know what? There are a lot of damned good people who work damned hard to feed their families and retain their pride."

Are you implying that poor people dont have any pride? Why are you so quick to assert that they still have pride, who said they didnt?

"And then people like you sit around and degrade them with bullshit comments like that?"

Like you, suggesting they have no pride? What's degrading about any comment I said? Point one degrading comment out. It's you that felt poor =/= no pride was enough of a stereotype to rebut it, even though no one made it. It was Walter or (;>)] (cant remember who) that suggested I 'IMPLIED' poor people are stupid, when I made no such implication and think so such thing.

I simply said, if you dont want to be poor, dont do what poor people do! And everyone flips out, they call my statements un classy and get in a huff, all offended, yet no one can claim it invalid!.

"There are also affluent people who have either worked their way up from some other economic level (indeed, like Dolly Parton) or who were born into the money, but continue to do the work and better the business...and yes even contribute back to society. On the other hand, there are the rich leeches who are just as bad (if not worse) drains on society as the welfare cases and prison overloads."

No doubt, much of this has been discussed in the thread on 'for richer or for poorer'

"The sheer ignorance and closed-mindedness involved in making anything even remotely like that kind of generalized statement astounds me."

Oh, you mean like you insinuating that I dont think poor people have pride? Guess it's ok for you to generalize about people who hold opinions as mine, but its not ok for me to make generalized statements which would validly make one much more likely to lead a better life?

"What astounds me further is that you guys continued to debate it ad naseum for days. What's to debate? You simply can not make the statement. Period."

Well! Glad thats settled! Have you etched that into a stone tablet perchance? Obviously its NOT settled, since there are still a lot of poor people in the world.

"If you want to be rich, work hard, be good to people, learn as much as you can and SAVE/INVEST WELL."

Well said, all things which poor people rarely do!

"Or I suppose you could always just marry money."

Like our favority democratic presidential candididate who found the american dream (denied to so many others, he claimed) by marrying a billionair heiress.

Michael

031904 - The idiot Symbol
"Well Michael, Roy summed it all up fairly well, and Hunter and Walter have also made good points. You can discount mine if you would like, you obviously can't see the trees due to the forest."

Well (;>)], you obviously cant see the trees due to the forest. You conveintly ignore most of my comments as well, I will take your lack of response to them as consencions to the points unless you state otherwise.

I attempted to identify the core of our disagreement with the following statements in my previous post

"is this the crux of your disagreement with me, just trying to get me to admit that some people are poor because they were beaten or robbed or what have you? DUH! Obviously some people are, but after they heal, get over it, and move on, they have two choices, remain poor, or try not to be. How much effort they want to put into that is up to them.."

and

"Ill be damned if the whole point of this debate with you was just to point out that sometimes random events happen that make/keep people poor. No kidding! Sudden illness is the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. But random events can't be planned for (as they are random) so no lesson can be taken from those scenarios, except for rudimentary risk management scenarios (which poor people don’t much consider)"

and

"I have all ready agreed that poor people face a more difficult time not being poor than not as poor people do. These are all just additional examples of that."

You responded to niether of these comments. Is this the core of our debate or not, instead chosing to focus on irrelevant sidetracks as usual. Frankly it seems we agree on the general idea that yes some people are poor despite hard work and smart choices because they fell to uncontrollable circumstances, and some are poor because they are still working on not being boor, some are poor because they do not make enough effort to not be poor. Thus, to not be poor, we dont want to do the things that obviously perpetuate our poverty, and we can best determine what things perpetuate poverty by looking at what poor people are doing.

"You first have to define "rich". I have known many single welfare mothers who where "richer" than many successful businessmen."

Ah, back to that old red herring again, I dont care, define it however you wish, but to be rich, one should still generally not do what non-rich people are doing, or do what rich people are doing. To be plagaloopa, one should generally not do what non-plagaloopa people are doing. Whatever you define rich as, that stement is still true, so who cares what you want to use as a definition. I don't. Frankly I think you are just reluctant to admit the general statement is true, even though its politically incorrect and are trying to obfuscate the core of our discussion.

"You are acting on the assumption that everybody starts out on a level playing field. They don't. And yes, people are denied opportunities everyday."

I never said that, nor did I ever 'act on that assumption' I said nothing about level playing fields, and we have been arguing about how not level the playing field was for the past 10 posts, again you are trying to bring up old issues. I KNOW THE PLAYING FIELD IS NOT LEVEL, I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I have agreed that it was not, all ready, in the previously mentioned 3 statements.

"Have you ever been on a job interview, only to find that they aren't interested in you because you don't have the proper degree? Forget your experience and qualifications. You don't have a degree."

red herring.

"Now, imagine being a monority. How many opportunities are they not given, simply because of the color of their skin. It ain't right, but it DOES happen."

Yes, there is such thing as discrimination, and it sucks, and it makes the playing field unlevel, and it means not as many doors are open, blah blah blah we have all ready been over all this.

"Now let me clarify a couple of my previous statements..."

First, how about you answer the points I made.

>"This is not a point that I NEED to concede, because as I have said all
>along, EVERYBODY has to work hard to accomplish anything. You have made
>the assumption that if you haven't got anything, than you must not be
>working hard enough."

No, it means you are either not working hard enough, working hard and making bad choices, or getting screwed through random events, muggings, asteroid impacts, illnesses, etc, while working hard and making good choices. The only scenarios in here we need to concern ourselves with getting rich is to avoid the ones that are avoidable, i.e. the ones that are a result of choice, not working hard enough, or making bad decisions.

now to be overly redudant, lets list the reasons poor poeple are poor.

my original list

A) they don’t care to not be poor
B) they care but don’t put the effort in
C) they put the effort in but make bad decisions
D) they put the effort in, make good decisions, but some random event knocks em back down

I would add

E) they put the effort in, are making good decisions, and in the process of becoming less poor

Anything you want to add to the list?

note: none of these presume either a level playing field or that all poor people have access to all the oporutnities that all rich people add. It does presume that they are not DENIED the very chance, the opportunity to make their lives better, as I have been saying all along.

Now, the statement in question "If you want to be rich, look at what poor people do and dont do it" still applies to scerio...

A) the dont care not to be poor. To not be poor, care to not be, then...
B) they care but dont put the effort in. To not be poor, care, but put the effort into it. But...
C) they care, put the effort in, but make bad deceisions (like trying to be professional sports players, or drug dealers) Thus, dont make bad decisions, look for a pragmatic career, and dont do illegal things. Even then...
D) they put the effort in, make good decisions, but some random even knocks them down.

All one can do is try to prepare as best they can for random events, buy some insurance, use protection, take birth control pills, travel in groups, use mass transit, etc. etc.

Even then, assuming one is knocked down by some random event, then they can either continue to lie there or get back up and start over.

*"One real good piece of advice here son, don't go quoting you fucking gurus."*

"It is perfectly legitimate to quote "people who have experienced issues pertaining to our discussion", you tell your own narrative, Hunter's narrative is pertinent, Ana's narrative is pertinent, as was the former Harvard teachers. Your argument is, in essence, that I can not know or argue something unless I have actually lived it. Ridiculous, no one can possible live through every experience imaginable."

"When you quote "people who have experienced issues pertaining to our discussion", you are giving THEIR narrative and not your own. YOUR narrative is based on YOUR ideas, not on how you formulated them."

Whatever, this is completely pointless discussion. I consider a narrative, or a testominal, from an involved and informed party to the subject in question to be evidence supporting my statement, is my statement my 'idea' or my 'narrative', who cares. I dont care for this semantic post modernistic crap. Did I have to have been a journalist in the Vietnam war to quote Uwe Siemon-Netto's mea culpe as evidence that Vietnam is in the sorry state it is in today partly because of journalistic bias. Hey, why dont we just discount EVERYTHING EXCEPT PERSONAL NARRATIVES WHILE WHERE AT IT. Of course, in doing that, we make no one persons personal narrative any more valid than other others since OBJECTIVE REALITY doesnt have a personal narrative. Take my comments as you will, I have no further interest in discussing the validity of including the quotes I have.

*****

*"Po Bronson wrote his fucking book, not you, and regurgatating his ideas ain't your ideas. If you have something to say, then YOU say it. Don't spout shit that you have read or heard, that isn't THINKING, that's called RECITATION. If you don't have ideas of your own, you are in the wrong place."*

"We only have two ways of acquiring information, through our own accord or having been told it. If you are discounting any information as invalid that was not acquired solely through our own accord you are discounting virtually all information, facts, ideas, concepts, and everything else. I can and will quote information that supports my position, whether you like it or not. You can respond to it or disregard it as you see fit. And I will not waste time trying to prove to you I have 'ideas of my own' I don’t care what you think of me really, or if you think I have any original ideas or not. Should we go head to head comparing each others 'original' ideas? How about I save us the time and say you win!"

"Ideas and concepts are FORMED through the facts and information that you obtain. Someone elses ideas and concepts are not your own. Quoting information to back your IDEAS is information. Quoting someone elses concepts and ideas to back your argument, is recitation, parrotting, and intellectual dishonesty."

Again, WHATEVER! I suppose eye-witness testimony is also irrelevent in a court of law then isnt it, since that testimony is merely someone elses ideas being used to back up my ideas, instead of 'information' or 'facts' such as DNA samples