White House Declares National Day for the Victims of Communism - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14861189
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it is important to be distracted by this Trumpism, mourn the passing of fascists and dictators, and once again celebrate our hate for those who seek economic equality.


What is inherently good about economic equality? Why only economic? Why not sports equality, and science equality? I mean why should only smart people be scientists, why should only steady hands be allowed to operate in surgery? Seriously cannot you see the foolishness of that statement?
#14861213
Oxymoron wrote:What is inherently good about economic equality? Why only economic? Why not sports equality, and science equality? I mean why should only smart people be scientists, why should only steady hands be allowed to operate in surgery? Seriously cannot you see the foolishness of that statement?


Economic inequality is the driving force behind many injustices, such as colonialism. Poor Jews get pogroms. Rich ones get Israel. By ending economic inequality, a lot of injustices can be easily resolved.

The same cannot be said other, more individual and less political types of inequality.
#14861218
Pants-of-dog wrote:Economic inequality is the driving force behind many injustices, such as colonialism. Poor Jews get pogroms. Rich ones get Israel. By ending economic inequality, a lot of injustices can be easily resolved.

The same cannot be said other, more individual and less political types of inequality.


I suppose you are drunk, but I will indulge your half baked arguments.... :lol:

Evidence that Jews got Pogroms because they were poor?

Rich Jews got Israel :lol: what the heck does that even mean?
#14861220
I was trying to put it into terms you would understand.

Are you capable of inderstanding that rich people get far more power in society than being poor? And that this has a significant (that means big and important) effect on society?

Do you also understand that the examples you gave do not share that quality? They do not have a significant impact on society.
#14861221
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was trying to put it into terms you would understand.

Are you capable of inderstanding that rich people get far more power in society than being poor? And that this has a significant (that means big and important) effect on society?

Do you also understand that the examples you gave do not share that quality? They do not have a significant impact on society.


Yes being rich should get you far more power, that is the point of being rich. This is how society has always been structured, unless you can give me an example where resources were shared equally no matter your merit?
I understand that wealth is the representation of the value an individual provides to society.
#14861224
Oxymoron wrote:Yes being rich should get you far more power, that is the point of being rich. This is how society has always been structured,


So you agree.

unless you can give me an example where resources were shared equally no matter your merit?


Yes, I can. Family is a good example. Kids do not go hungry just because they are too small to have developed any marketable skills.

I understand that wealth is the representation of the value an individual provides to society.


Your understanding is incorrect.
#14861226
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you agree.



Yes, I can. Family is a good example. Kids do not go hungry just because they are too small to have developed any marketable skills.



Your understanding is incorrect.


A.i agree with what?

B. Family is not a state, nor is it society. But if you want to look at it from a different point of view, kids are an investment that will take care of you when you get old. Thus you feed and clothe them so that they would do the same in return. Kids have value because of the return on investment.

C. My understanding is correct.
#14861230
Wealth is not the representation of the value an individual provides to society. Many people are born into it, and thus have it GIVEN to them. Many people also give their time and such and so aren't wealthy, but are still seen as being of more value than a rich person.

I'd assign more value to a fireman, than I would ever assign to a rich person, regardless of how much money they have.
#14861232
Godstud wrote:Wealth is not the representation of the value an individual provides to society. Many people are born into it, and thus have it GIVEN to them. Many people also give their time and such and so aren't wealthy, but are still seen as being of more value than a rich person.

I'd assign more value to a fireman, than I would ever assign to a rich person, regardless of how much money they have.


A fireman is born every minute, one is gone another takes his place. Yes some are born into money, but it takes skill to keep wealth, and they offer others much more value then a guy who likes his thrills and sometimes saves someone. A person born into money is being paid back by society for the benefits of their forefathers. Someone did something so great for humanity that generation after generation are still being rewarded.
#14861233
Oxymoron wrote:A.i agree with what?


My claim.

B. Family is not a state, nor is it society.


Other examples abound. So, even if we ignore how you shifted the goalposts, we can still look at hunter gatherers, Cuba, anarchist collectives, and others.

But if you want to look at it from a different point of view, kids are an investment that will take care of you when you get old. Thus you feed and clothe them so that they would do the same in return. Kids have value because of the return on investment.


No, families will even take care of kids that have disabilities that would make them very bad investments.

C. My understanding is correct.


No. It does not, for example, describe why kids who inherited millions but provide nothing to society are rich.
#14861236
Pants-of-dog wrote:My claim.



Other examples abound. So, even if we ignore how you shifted the goalposts, we can still look at hunter gatherers, Cuba, anarchist collectives, and others.



No, families will even take care of kids that have disabilities that would make them very bad investments.



No. It does not, for example, describe why kids who inherited millions but provide nothing to society are rich.


A. What is your claim? And how does my statement back up your claim?
B.Hunter gathers? Please provide evidence that they divided resources equally no matter the merit.
C. Some families do in rich countries, same reason people have pets.
D. Rich kids inherit millions, because of a huge contribution their parents or grand parents made. So huge that the benefits move to their kids and their kids and their kids.
#14861238
@Oxymoron You know nothing about wealth if you think it takes skill to keep it. :lol: :lol: :lol: You simply can't be a complete idiot.

I am reasonably wealthy(not a millionaire, but good enough). I have a company that manages my portfolio, and investments. It makes me good money and I have to do nothing more than check my bank balance and portfolio.

You thinking rich people have more value is ridiculous. By that reasoning, I am far more valuable than some young guy like you, talking out of his ass. :lol:
#14861239
Oxymoron wrote:A. What is your claim? And how does my statement back up your claim?


Read the thread.

B.Hunter gathers? Please provide evidence that they divided resources equally no matter the merit.


No, my point has already been proven with the many other examples.

C. Some families do in rich countries, same reason people have pets.


So you agree that people provide for their children even though they may not be a good investment, and this in turns weakens your argument that all societies are naturally meritocratic, including capitalism.

D. Rich kids inherit millions, because of a huge contribution their parents or grand parents made. So huge that the benefits move to their kids and their kids and their kids.


...which is a different reason than your original claim about wealth being a measure of the value society places on the individual. So we agree that your initial understanding was incorrect because it was too simplistic.
#14861243
Godstud wrote:@Oxymoron You know nothing about wealth if you think it takes skill to keep it. :lol: :lol: :lol: You simply can't be a complete idiot.

I am reasonably wealthy(not a millionaire, but good enough). I have a company that manages my portfolio, and investments. It makes me good money and I have to do nothing more than check my bank balance and portfolio.

You thinking rich people have more value is ridiculous. By that reasoning, I am far more valuable than some young guy like you, talking out of his ass. :lol:


Well mr.Millionare I do not want to get into a dick measuring contest with mr.Whiteprivilege 8)

Yes wealthy have far more value, they provide jobs, they create liquidity as you do so others like poor ol me can borrow money, they help innovation, they are the spark that makes the engine start and the gas that keeps it going.
#14861244
Pants-of-dog wrote:Read the thread.



No, my point has already been proven with the many other examples.



So you agree that people provide for their children even though they may not be a good investment, and this in turns weakens your argument that all societies are naturally meritocratic, including capitalism.



...which is a different reason than your original claim about wealth being a measure of the value society places on the individual. So we agree that your initial understanding was incorrect because it was too simplistic.


A. You make a retarded claim then back track using troll tactics... No i do not agree that what I said supports any thing you said.
B.I agree that some people view children as a sort of pet and it makes them feel better, it does not defend you argument I am sorry to say.
C.It is another reason not different.
#14861246
I never said I was a millionaire, 'moron. Learn to READ.

Oxymoron wrote:Yes wealthy have far more value, they provide jobs, they create liquidity as you do so others like poor ol me can borrow money, they help innovation, they are the spark that makes the engine start and the gas that keeps it going.
Really? My investments make jobs? :lol: Can you provide some evidence that stocks make jobs, or is this just more BS?

How does me buying and selling stocks help innovation?

@Oxymoron sorry, but I can't hear you, since you have not enough value for me to consider your words to be of any consequence.

Also, I don't know where you live, so your argument might be shit because of that. Do you actually have an argument that isn't simply bullshit?
#14861248
Godstud wrote:I never said I was a millionaire, 'moron. Learn to READ.

Really? My investments make jobs? :lol: Can you provide some evidence that stocks make jobs, or is this just more BS?

How does me buying and selling stocks help innovation?

@Oxymoron sorry, but I can't hear you, since you have not enough value for me to consider your words to be of any consequence.

Also, I don't know where you live, so your argument might be shit because of that. Do you actually have an argument that isn't simply bullshit?


A. Stocks are basically huge crowd funding systems that allow companies to grow, innovate and allows people who invest to make money. By you investing you are helping advance society.
B.If you do not want to hear me that is your right.
C. You can read my argument and either reply to it or continue making a full of yourself.
#14861252
Your "argument" is weak.

You attack ME instead of my argument that demonstrates that rich people do NOT have more value.

Rich people are not necessarily more productive. For every Elon Musk, there is 10 other rich fuckers who put their money in off-shore accounts, and don't re-invest.
#14861253
Oxymoron wrote:A. You make a retarded claim then back track using troll tactics... No i do not agree that what I said supports any thing you said.


Actually, anyone reading this thread can see how you agree with the claim that economic inequality has a far greater social impact than the inequalities you mentioned.

B.I agree that some people view children as a sort of pet and it makes them feel better, it does not defend you argument I am sorry to say.


As before, anyone reading this thread can judge for themselves if you agreed with me.

C.It is another reason not different.


The other reason is a different reason.
#14861254
Godstud wrote:Your "argument" is weak.

You attack ME instead of my argument that demonstrates that rich people do NOT have more value.

Rich people are not necessarily more productive. For every Elon Musk, there is 10 other rich fuckers who put their money in off-shore accounts, and don't re-invest.


How is my argument weak? I do not attack you I scoff at you, but I make an argument none the less.

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

Rich people are far more productive, and those fuckers who put money in off-shore accounts employ more people then your super hero fire men. Who are actually a net loss for society.

The NRL blows the AFL out of the water. What's th[…]

EU-BREXIT

It's revolutionary indeed that the bondage between[…]

A very rare Israeli interview to the Arab media. U[…]

They grabbed the opportunity pretty soon. 'Let's […]