On 2/22/2012 2:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/22/2012 1:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:52 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Not if you figure in probability.

Forget probability.

Why? Because you say so? It ruins your argument so we just forget about
probability. I don't think so.


You had every opportunity to show up at the closest
NBA team's facility and try to make their team. No team posts armed
guards that prevent people from going to the practice facility and
asking for a tryout.

If one has no chance of achieving something then for all intents and
purposes they have no opportunity to do it. Crippled people have the
same opportunity to make the NBA as anyone. That's your goofy logic.


Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA.

Yep. We don't all have an equal *likelihood* of playing in the NBA.

Good example of word play. You know what I meant.

Yes, I know that you are determined, one way or another, to say that the
system is "unfair".

I'm saying that a system that only gives a tiny few a fighting chance to
succeed and leaves out everyone else is not a fair system.

Our system doesn't do that.

Get some facts before blabbing. Tell me how many Americans can retire on
what they have earned and put away during their lifetime without
government programs to help them?


Sorry - it is *NOT* "unfair" that someone doesn't have the talent to
play pro basketball. It is *NOT* "unfair" that few people have the sort
of insight and personal drive that Bill Gates had. It's just life.

So it's not unfair that only a small group of people are born with the
talent, insight, or drive to succeed?

Most people have enough of all of those to succeed.

But 98% of them don't. That the fact. So what are all those people
lacking? A fair system?


In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because

It *is* the argument.

Only to a simpleton.


When there are no other factors that would negate that argument.

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

To a simple simon.


Yeah, it is in your fantasy world where

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

Okay Simon, if you say so.


But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who
didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all.

It is.

Not.

It is nearly entirely the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

It would be if

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

If all things were equal that might be true. But nothing is equal.


Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have.

Nope. It means she has some innate market value that I don't have.


Wait a minute! You just said the argument was almost entirely about who
puts out a good work effort and who didn't?

You think there aren't a million pretty bimbos out there, Hawke-Ptooey?
There are, and Paris Hilton works harder than most of them.

You know that how?


We were talking about those with an innate market value and those
without one.

I'm talking about Paris Hilton working hard at what she does. That's why
she is a big success, and other bimbos don't have as much success as
she. But of course, they don't *deserve* her success simply for being
pretty bimbos.

She's not a big success. She doesn't even work for a living. She's an
heiress and has no need to work so she does it for the hell of it, and
it was handed to her on a silver platter. Kind of unfair, huh?



No one "deserves" any particular level of success, Hawke-Ptooey. All
anyone deserves, and our system definitely provides it, is the right to
do the best they can with what they have. If someone brought up by a
single mom working a low-wage job busts his hump in school but only can
get into a ****ty school like CSU Chico and then gets a $60,000 a year
job as an accountant for Kaiser, that's fair; and if someone else
breezes through school and gets good enough grades and SAT to get into
Stanford and then gets a $150K job right out of the gate, that's fair,
too. Switch the outcomes of the two people if you like - it's still fair.

I have no problem with that scenario. I think that is fair. Both worked
and achieved a measure of success. The difference between the two isn't
all that much. I'd say a fair amount due to unequal ability. It's not
that they don't make the same. It's the degree to which they are paid
unequally. This is not out of line. 18 million for the CEO of Macy's
compared to his workers is not fair. See, it's the degree not the fact
pay is not equal.


Get it through your dense head, Hawke-Ptooey: No one has any "right" to
a particular level of success in life.

Is that right? Okay, then nobody has a right to life either. Right? As
long as nobody has rights then nobody has a right to live either or are
you making an exception for whatever you want to?

Hawke