On 2/23/2012 10:42 AM, Hawke wrote:
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?

Because it's irrelevant to the issue.


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.

No, that's false. That's not what opportunity means.


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.

I have them, and I have an excellent mastery of them. Our system does
not "only gives a tiny few" a chance at success. In fact, our system
gives a chance at success to far more than virtually any other system.

In Europe, for example, which you leftists just insanely adore, children
are judged at the end of what would be middle school here, and if
they're seen as not having much academic potential, they're frog-marched
into vocational schools, and they have virtually no chance thereafter to
attend university. It's possible to make the jump back into the
university track later, but it's extremely difficult and very few even
attempt it.


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.

That is *NOT* a fact - it's bull****. Most people have all they need to
succeed. Your definition of success is complete bull****.


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

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.



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

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

To a

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.


Yeah, it is in your fantasy world where

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

Okay

Okay.



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.

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.


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?

I've seen them.


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.

I'd say she has been.


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.

You can't say anything that's "unfair" about it. It has no meaning.
You just don't *like* it, but that doesn't mean there is anything
inequitable or unjust or unethical or "unfair" about it.


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

Is that right?

Yes.


Okay, then nobody has a right to life either. Right?

No, that's wrong. We are endowed with a right to our own lives.