ITT: People who can't take a joke

Before people accuse me of "class envy," I would like to state that my grandfather was a farmer in western Kansas who spoke only German until elementary school, and he worked his way up through the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, and the 2nd World War to a successful insurance sales operation that sent all 9 of his kids to college. Now my father took advantage of that and became a doctor, and I now get to enjoy 12 years of private pre-college education and I don't have to pay for my own college. Yet, the deal is that if I want to go to graduate school (which I most definitely want to do), because my family believes that my hard work is important for me to go where I need to.

Now I would have all the personal reasons to support laissez faire capitalism as I would be successful in the system (yet I want to go into international service or the academic field, but that's beside the point), but here I am a social libertarian. Why?

A. I don't believe that people could do what my grandfather did if they tried; our "system" or "national structure" has found more and more ways to become more exclusive.
B. If hard-working, well-meaning kids have parents who don't support them like me or my parents had, where will they turn?
C. A good education is a right and not a privilege. Just like food, heating, and other basic needs.

 

This is one aspect of the world that i have a hard time dealing with. On one hand, children definitely deserve to be well taken care of and educated. On the other hand, once a child becomes an adult (whatever age that may be) they need to be able to EARN anything they receive.

My only example of this is adults who sit at home telling themselves they "can't do anything" and collect welfare while eating Cheetos. I have met many of these people and in my opinion they don't deserve to breathe the same air as I do.

If you "can't do anything", then give up, kill yourself, and stop consuming the rest of the workers resources. Either that, or get up and do SOMETHING. There are plenty of food kitchens and homeless shelters that need volenteers. There are animal shelters that need help and neighbors that physically cannot leave their home do to disease. There are ways to HELP the world rather than consume and complain. In doing so you will also create an incredible amount of opportunities to help yourself as well as others in ways you would never imagine. Employers don't knock on doors.

Also note I'm a rich white kid, so take that into consideration. That is just my two cents, hopefully not too off topic.

 

Can anyone who was not born into Royal Family in the U.K have the same possibilities as the Royal kids? No!
W. was not a bad example at all. He is typically a Loser with a powerful family on his back. And he was your President. A very good example indeed!
Same goes to Obama. If he didn't have his Education and possibilities,if he would grow up in Harlem instead of Hawaii, he will not be your president right now!

Another good example would be the population characteristics of American Jails. Guess who are dominating. The wealthy and whites, or the poor "others"? If the life would be equal to all, the chances would be same to all, the education would be good enough to all, why so much crime? And why not the wealthy whites?
IMHO, a good social security and healthcare system is the only way to avoid class priviliges.

 

First, props to your grandfather for the hard work and the rewards it brought him and his family.

On your first point, I would say that it is still possible, however hard it might be, for people to succeed in our "system". I think the only thing that has changed is people's attitudes. No one wants to work for it anymore. They want the brass ring given to them on a silver platter.

On your second point, if hard working, well-meaning kids don't have a proper support system then they likely will not be hard working and even seldom be "well meaning". They'll most likely be knuckleheads and idiots. Spawned from the same ilk. The good kids with bad parents just need the right attitude to succeed. They don't need someone coddling them or handing them opportunities left and right. It all starts with attitude. If you have a defeatist attitude, expect to be defeated. In life and in general.

On your last point, an "education" is a right. Not a "good education" because good implies some form of quantifiable measurement. It implies a comparison too, with other educations. And lastly it implies that given that good education, that the student will in turn be good. In bad schools, in poor neighborhoods, some students will still succeed, despite the idiots, bad teachers, low funding, etc or whatever else you want to lump in.

Likewise, in ivy league or private prep schools, there will still be kids that are able to coast through and still wind up as dumb or dumber as they were going in.

I have a real problem with people that think that every kid in America is entitled to some insanely expensive, all expense paid, golden ticket education with the best and brightest teachers and the best and brightest students, free as in beer to them and their families. That kind of dreaming has no basis in reality. And I don't want it to. The student is a product of themselves and their merits, not the bogeyman or their crackhead momma.

 

So what?!? All kids should be royals or given royal privileges? And what exactly is the reasoning for that???

I went ahead and substituted W. for JFK. Same situation, same title. So what? Winners and losers come from all walks of life.

Ummmm, I think you're conflating two issues. One is the chance to succeed, which everyone has, and the elimination of responsibility for people who choose to break the law.

Nice try though!

 

So you accept that W. is a loser, but was still able to be President. Thank you for supporting my point. Without the family, he wouldn't be even "suggested" to be a CEO, not even President.

What I tried to point with the Jail system was the fact that somehow wealthy families do not need crime, whereas poeple with poor families try to get around through crime? Why? Why do they just ruin their lives by stealing etc?

If all would be "equal" in American society, there would be more or less a blance between the demographics of the prisoners. But there isn't.
This leads to 2 questions

1) Is it because of blacks and lations are "born" like that,
2) Or is it because they have it harder from the very beginning?

 

From what I understand after reading previous Right wing posts, I take that the imbalance that affects minorities is due neither to them being born like that, nor to them having a harder time from the beginning. I gather that *supposedly* the reason for the imbalance are the individual choices they make, such as not working hard enough, having a victim mentality (blaming others for their misfortunes), and breaking the laws. In theory, anyone regardless of income level/class/race is susceptible to being on the losing end of the system's imbalance. Therefore, the fact that minorities end up in these situations more often than majorities becomes a coincidence since this has more to do with personal matters than with structural matters.

It's still a bunch of BS oppressive reactionary bourgeoisie mentality, though.

 

Wait, which one of us is cherry picking? I flatly and clearly stated that I only used Bush as an example because of his fame and recognition in the current social landscape. Nowhere did I say that all well-to-do people have the same story he has. Don't you know me well enough yet to know I don't deal in absolutes like that?

You'll note that I didn't mention JFK, nor did I include any comment on Bush's effectiveness as a President. Granted, you know my feelings on that topic from previous conversations, but those ideas are -- imho -- irrelevant to the observation I was speaking to. So long as you've mentioned JFK, though, I completely agree that he (and most of the Kennedy family, for that matter) are exactly the type to whom I refer, and you'd be hard pressed indeed to find any previous statement I've ever made to the contrary. On that point, no argument from me.

I'm making a pretty basic observation, and I'm wondering if you're just giving me a dose of my own frequent Devil's Advocate style here, because to deny that there are those in this country who get a free pass from birth through to retirement is obtuse, at best. (Regardless of how many of them there are, which is irrelevant to the observation I'm making) There's a reason we have cliches in the lexicon like "Trust Fund Kid".

By making that implication, am I somehow implying that there aren't also people in this country who live off welfare? I'd like to think people on this forum hold me in a higher regard than to think I'm stupid enough to argue against that..

More than half of Americans earn a median average of just under 50K per year. Especially in these times of national economic woe -- let alone the rest of the time -- how can one make any argument that someone with an income of less than 50k has the same opportunity to send their kid to a school which costs nearly that much per year in tuition and related fees, as a person who's yearly income is 200k or more? Granted, there are loan programs and scholarships, etc. I'm not arguing against that either, though.

And again, please note that at the end of my last post I flatly and clearly stated that I'm not proposing this is a problem which needs a solution. It was, as I said, merely an observation. I'm surprised to see you take umbrage --however light -- in this case.

 

Whats the matter, you thought I was a fan of his or something?

What the hell does that mean? Wealthy families don't need crime? How about Bernie Madoff? Not a criminal? Or the judge's son from Las Vegas that knocked over the Bellagio? Not a criminal? Gimme a break dude.

According to *you* there should be a balance in demographics. That has nothing to do with whether the system is fair. Life is unfair. Get it? It's not supposed to be the same for every person. That's *why* I'm such a fan of being able to succeed based on an individual's hard work. Prisoners break the law and get sent to prison, I'm sorry but the concept that they're doing that because of their race seems borderline racist to me...

Again, sounds a lot like racism. You're connecting dots that aren't there. So in countries with lower numbers of blacks and latinos there should be no one in prison right? Because it's just potentially them and their lot in life that causes them to break the law. Whites wouldn't do that!

Seriously, keep digging that hole.

 

I'm not reading this thread or this particular debate, but I will comment on this one: Come on, man... you're giving a few huge examples. He clearly did not say or even come close to implying that there are NO wealthy criminals. There are far far fewer law breakers from wealthy families than there are among the poor. I feel that every human being is equally capable of being a criminal, its just a matter of circumstance and "necessity."

 

Carl, I guess I'm misunderstanding you then. And possibly others on here, because it sure seemed like wealth=automatic free ride in life. I was just trying to point out that it's up to the individuals/families what they do with (or without) their income. That some families do spoil their kids and leave them wanting for nothing and others make them work for it. That's all.

Your argument about the 50K family versus the 200K or whatever family is silly. If you want to argue that the 50K family deserves 200K a year because someone else has got it, I'm sorry, I strongly disagree.

I do acknowledge that if the 50K family wants to send their kid to the same school as the 200K family that it will require a fuck ton of work, but that's the real gist of things. That regardless of income level, its about cost to the families at the end of the day. A 200K family can *possibly* absorb the cost of a private school easier than a family making 50K, on that I think we're in agreement. I just don't *assume* as some do, that the 200K family *is* sending their kid to the best school they can find. Every time.

And more over, I'm arguing that the 50K family, if they want to send their kids to some illustrious school, will have to bust their asses to make it happen. And I for one, have no problems with hard work. It's a shame others don't feel the same.

I'm not denying the disparity, I'm just saying if you want it, it's not going to be given to you. It's not going to get handed to you like candy. And I for one, am not looking around at wealthy individuals with contempt or ire because they seemingly don't *have* to work as hard as I do. I see it as a challenge, one that will be *that* much more rewarding when I succeed.

 

But Adam that necessity bit doesn't make any sense. My point is, it's not as though because you're wealthy, you're exempt from crime because you shouldn't *need* more money. It doesn't stop people from bilking the system. Look at the Wall street debacle and banks taking advantage of morons happy to sign over their first born for the chance at owning a home. A home they couldn't afford in the first place.

 

This is it, generally people making more money, have shockingly, worked a lot harder to make that money. A strange correlation granted, but amazing how it works out.

 

I put "necessity" in quotations because the poor are more inclined to break the law to make ends meet. They would see it as a necessity when their job just isn't feeding their family, or making rent, etc. The wealthy don't run into this issue anywhere near as often as the poor. You and I can both agree that those people are fully capable of making ends meet in an honest way, but that doesn't change the facts: the poor break the law more often than the wealthy, because the "necessity" is more prevalent among them.

 

I'm sorry I just can't agree with that idea. And I'm not disagreeing to be a douche. I don't see *most* of the poor law breakers on some noble quest to "make ends meet". You know, like stealing a loaf of bread out of the market to feed their poor starving kids.

I see poor people breaking the law (mostly) as folks that are too lazy to get a job and be productive members of society. They want rims, and car stereos and tinted windows and big screen TVs and *gasp* those things cost money. So since they've been weened on a culture of stupidity, they feel they are entitled to the "good life" and the only way to the good life is to lie, cheat and steal their way to it.

It's mixed up priorities. If they took that motivation and balls and applied it to bettering themselves and distancing themselves from morons, they might actually get somewhere in life. But that requires energy and effort and they don't seem to have that kind of drive. They want what they want when they want it, regardless of whom they hurt in the process.

Have you ever been robbed Adam? Had your personal effects strewn about? Had the things you *worked* for stolen from you residence? I have. On different occasions. I had a sweet JS1000 BP bought brand new, pristine condition from GC for a cool $1450ish (though it's been a while). I saved up and I bought it. I had a nice S&M sabbath bike too, put over $1000 in parts into it and built it up 100% custom.

Both of which, and several other low-dollar items were stolen by (3) kids that saw me walk in the door carrying computer monitors and assumed they were for me and would be there the next day (I brought them in because I didn't want to leave them in the car overnight as they weren't for me, but for my work).

So no, don't sell me a load of horseshit about noble thieves just doing it to make ends meet. I bought some thieving piece of shit a new JS1000 and a fucking mint BMX bike because that was *available* instead of the monitors they wanted... and that douche likely sold my gear to finance their drug habit, drink or have a good time.

And if by chance, they *did* sell my gear to buy their screaming babies or themselves a warm meal, FUCK THEM. You don't steal or break the law and then complain when the system hands you your ass. If you want a warm meal or something for yourself, you earn it. With work. Not excuses.

 

You're literally reading what you want to read and not what I'm saying. I clearly stated that you and I both agree that what they're doing is not necessary and that they are fully capable of making ends meet honestly. My point was that they (the poor) commit more crimes than the wealthy because they see it as a necessity. Not that it is. So, "ok" to your last post.

 

Fair enough, let me just say that their *view* of stealing or breaking the law as being a necessity is wrong. It's not justifiable. It's not "OK". And I think it has a lot to do with a misguided sense of entitlement, poor work ethic (if any) and a subculture that celebrates moronic behavior as though it were virtue.

 

This will be the third time where I'm saying that I don't think they're right for feeling its a necessity. However, I spent a lot of time around poor folk in South Western PA, and the majority of the people I'm talking about aren't bad people, and wouldn't hurt anybody. Their crimes usually consist of selling weed or whatever else they can get their hands on. I don't respect their decision, but I'm saying that most of these criminals aren't taking anything from anybody.. that's entirely beside the point, I just wanted to mention it.

 

Alright and this will be the last time I address what you've brought up. You brought up the poor and necessity thing. I'm glad we're in agreement that they aren't justified and are clearly wrong in breaking the law (as far as stealing goes).

As far as breaking the law to sell/buy/smoke weed, we'd probably agree that the marijuana laws are a bit ridiculous and might even be in agreement that weed should be legal and for crimes like that, there's no need to pack prisons with lizards and hippies.

However, even if you or I agree on that (or those) points, the law is still the law. And if you break it, and get caught, expect to pay the consequences for your choices, however much you (not you personally Adam) may feel as though they're OK because it's a "victimless" crime, etc.

 

I agree with what you've said there.