Conquer Club

We can't be equal because we are individuals. We all have different experiences, make different choices and think differently. Some born into "bad" circumstances, overcome and do great things others give in and assert that life is unfair. Some born into "good" circumstances prosper, while others make choices that lead to a less than desirable outcome. I don't want to be equal, because then I would lose my individuality. I want to bask in the warm sunshine of my "good choices" and learn from my bad ones. But at no time would I ever assume someone else owes me something because the choices they made had a greater outcome then the choices I made.




And this is why socialism does not work.

So long as there are red-heads, there will be no equality



This kid is going to get beat up NO MATTER WHAT

jay_a2j wrote:We can't be equal because we are individuals. We all have different experiences, make different choices and think differently. Some born into "bad" circumstances, overcome and do great things others give in and assert that life is unfair. Some born into "good" circumstances prosper, while others make choices that lead to a less than desirable outcome. I don't want to be equal, because then I would lose my individuality. I want to bask in the warm sunshine of my "good choices" and learn from my bad ones. But at no time would I ever assume someone else owes me something because the choices they made had a greater outcome then the choices I made.




And this is why socialism does not work.

Ah: Captain Obvious has cross-bred with Field-Marshal Non-Sequitur.

Army of GOD wrote:
But once someone gets passed that point, how far they go depends on what they do. Some people don't push hard enough and fail miserably. Others grind through the dirt and make it.

This is classic failure of logic.

Truth is that some people get everthing, are lazy bums and harm society more than they help.

Truth is some can arise from the worst of circumstances and become great. Whatever you think of Oprah Winfrey personnally, for example, she arose from very "humble", even abusive beginnings and now has a world-wide impact.


BUT.. and this is the real key, looking at the extremes is like saying "well, if I get 15 sets of sixes in a row, I can win this game.". True, but how likely? Someone like Oprah doesn't get where she is without a lot of personal ability -- and by that I mean something much more than just hard work and dedication. She had to have the ability to relate to people effectively and have the "know-how" to do what she does. But, she could not have gotten where she is alone. Ask her, and she points to her faith as a primary focus. She also points to people in her life, both who motivated her in positive ways and negative ways. Had she been born 10 years earliers, it is highly unlikely she could have become anything like she is now. She probably would not have been an abject failure ... then again, maybe she would have been raped, strung up by a lynch mob because she was "too forward" for a black woman back then.

To judge real opportunity, you cannot look at the Carnegies, the Gates or the Oprahs, to judge real opportunity, you have to look at the "masses". You have to look at what an average child with a bit above-average or average skills and abilities can achieve. Can they have a reasonably successful and happy life? Can they grow up to put food on their table, live in a reasonably safe house. Do they have the option of staying healthy if they make the right choices and are fortunate enough to avoid the "unpreventable" things be it a meteor hitting them on the head or contracting a dread disease (not through pollution or similar preventative impacts). Is the risk of marginally "preventable" stuff within reason.. that is, am I forced to live next to a toxic waste dump or where gangs prevail? Do I really and truly have a choice (note that "choice" means not simply that there is no law preventing, it means that I have the knowledge and awareness of other opportunities and the wherewithall skillwise and in other ways to go other places).

In this regard, our society is failing. The choices that I had were limited, in large part because of my gender. You can easily say "oh, but you could have>..." and yet, the truth is that that "could have" has little to do with effort. It has mostly to do with my ability to "smooze" and so forth, to in the terms of Dale Carnegie and Steven Covey, be effective. Those are the skills that really and truly matter. They are skills to which my brother almost seemed to be born with, but which I consistantly lack. I almost aced my SATs in math, yet, no one ever suggested I consider math as a profession. In fact, most of my advisors tried to talk me out of math up until they actually had me in a class. By then, I was almost ready to graduate.
Understand, I am not saying these things to be a "sob story" or any such thing. Life is what it is. One cannot go back and, who knows if things really could have been better had they been different. My point is that when you criticize people who are not successful for "not working hard enough" or simply "making the wrong choices", then you shortchange society. You buy into this idea that people are, more or less, where they "deserve" to be, where they "earn" AND that means you miss out on fully utilizing people's full potential. When you cheat people of opportunities, it is not just they who suffer, it is society who is harmed.

See, that is the real problem here. I don't care what kind of system you have. Some people will always fail, and not just because some people are really and truly "no account lazy bums". Some people will fail simply becuase life is just not "fair" and "equal". If life were equal no child would be born with autism, no child would be born without limbs that work well.. etc. If life were "fair", 10 kids would not have died in a housefire in a "nearby" town last year and no child would have to go to the school in Rhode Island that fired all its teachers.

HOWEVER, if we don't do all we can to ensure that more people get more opportunities, to reduce the unfairness as much as possible, then you wind up with more people like myself, people who, without bragging, have a good many skills - mentally and physically, but who lacks the "connections", the "something". And note, when I say that, I am not talking about being a "jerk". Even people who strongly dislike me won't call me a "jerk", just irritating. I am not "rude", but I make people uncomfortable. Ironically, if I were truly a "jerk", I think things would be easier, because that is a problem with a ready solution.

My husband is almos the opposite. He is someone that everyone in our small town knows and essentially likes (always a few exceptions, of course!). Saying he works hard and well is a gross understatement. But, he works with his hands. So, he is never going to be a millionaire. He lacks a certain "something" that many entreprenuers have. YET, what is this man contributing to society? Quite a lot. A generation of boys has looked to him as their coach in various sports. He has been counted a "hero" by more than one (the school asks kids to pick people.. he was chosen more than once). Many an older neighbor has had things fixed quickly, for free, thanks to him. I have mentioned many times his fire duties. Granted, one or two of those he saved are now in jail, but not all. And those are just the "surface" things.. the very tangible things to which one can point.

And yet, but most societal measures, he is a "failure". We only barely are able to keep health insurance. We have not been able to save money for either of our son's college educations. My children have only left the state when family have paid the way. (one child once, another more often).. and opportunity that is not likely to come again any time soon.
We are holding onto our house, but only by a "thread". Like I said, we are doing OK, but you also have to realize that my "OK" is likely well below what many of you just assume is your "base". And that is the part that I really want to get across.

See, you can look at that gas station attendant or store clerk and say "failure" in your mind. OR, you can say "hey, there is someone who probably did not have all the opportunities I have, someone who is trying the best they can. This doesn't mean perfection. You are not perfect. You make stupid choices and mistakes. Hopefully, most have worked out OK for you. But, unless and until you truly realize that "but for .... there too, would I go", unless and until you have the experience and maturity to truly understand that, you will never be in a position to find real and true solutions. All you will do is contribute more to the overall problem.

It is easy to blame those who are not successful. It is much, much harder to understand, to really understand why success has eluded so many.

Phatscotty wrote:I know people who have made it. I work for people who have made it. I grew up watching my mom make it, lose it, then make it again. I saw her do it. 3 kids, 2 jobs, full time student at the U, and still went out on thursday nights...

You saw her struggle and yet you still blame anyone who cannot "make" for their failure. Maybe you need to remember a bit more about what your mom went through.

Oh, and realize that one reason she was able to go to school was that she was born a few years ago and she was single.

... and, apparently, had someone able to watch her kids on Thursday nights.

We are all created equal. We all pick our user names. We all have 1000 points when we start.

Our choices after that will determine our score. Certainly advantages like experience, computer speed and internet speed can affect our score, but we are still equal, and have to opportunity to increase those factors, albeit some more than others.

Many will complain the mods are unfair to them in the forum, the dice are unfair to them in the game, or they always get bad drops, etc, but in the end, the majority know, its all as equal as equal can be, even if not necessarily fair at all times.

In the end, the important thing isnt our score. The important thing is the relationships weve made, the other players weve helped, and the fun that weve had. If the score is the only thing you ever worried about, than you have missed the entire point of the game.

Interesting discussion. I think a few things need to be clarified. First we need to distinguish between people being equal on the one hand, and on the other hand, people having equal circumstances and opportunities. It seems your OP question, symmetry, focuses mainly on the second, and I agree it's pretty clear that everyone does not have that.

Though I don't know the stats, you're probably right that only a small portion of the under-privileged manage to overcome their circumstances and "succeed". Still, that doesn't mean that the chance to do so is as out-of-reach as as it seems you are saying. I look at it that there are not really defined groups, but rather continuums (continuae?) in terms of socio-economic advantage, attitude, and ability. The lower you are on the soc-ec scale, the higher up you have to be on the others (some combination) to get to the same standard of living.

I think this avoids the errors of both the extreme capitalists who, ignoring discrimination, claim anybody can succeed equally, and of the extreme liberals, who talk as if it's impossible to overcome and succeed.

Another thought is this. It sounds right to say that everyone should have equal opportunity, but put yourself in the place of the person who succeeds and has children. Don't you want to pass on all the advantage you can to your children? Doesn't the demand for absolute equality of opportunity diminish or take away the right to do so? I'm not sure how to balance these two things, but it needs to be considered.

A related thought is that the statement on which the question is apparently based: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” was in my opinion primarily a repudiation of the European concept of aristocracy: that some people have the right to run the show, politically and economically, simply because of their ancestry. I’m not sure it was meant to outlaw the kind of birth advantage I spoke of in the last paragraph. Even if we came to the conclusion that we should do so, I highly doubt we could.

daddy1gringo wrote:
I think this avoids the errors of both the extreme capitalists who, ignoring discrimination, claim anybody can succeed equally, and of the extreme liberals, who talk as if it's impossible to overcome and succeed.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the liberal view. Liberals don't feel that its impossible for people to overcome and succeed, just far more difficult in some cases. Even so, few would say, for example, that someone being abused as a child gives you the right to be a criminal as an adult. However, a liberal is likely to say, "let's see if education/etc can change a person" and "in the meantime, "restraining the person from society is necessary, but it should be under humane conditions and with some avenue for improvement". Whereas the conservative is more likely to say "lock em all up!".

Ironically enough, when you look at outcomes, as opposed to the "touchy feely" idea of "justice" for adults... then liberal and conservatives are not so far apart. BOTH want opportunities for children, both admit its far better to invest in head start than to pay for more prisons (and that is not in any way an esoteric example, it IS reality!).

However, the far right has lately decided to ignore much evidence, in favor of the immediate gains they wish to achieve. This is what frustrates many people today. The FAR right has coopted the conservative positions, become politically radical on issues like abortion and immigration, and ignores real and true solutions. At the same time, they have worked to make "liberal"mean nothing except a slur.

None of that benefits society. For society to function well with freedom, people have to really and truly be willing to listen to each other, not just shout out slogans.

daddy1gringo wrote:
A related thought is that the statement on which the question is apparently based: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” was in my opinion primarily a repudiation of the European concept of aristocracy: that some people have the right to run the show, politically and economically, simply because of their ancestry. I’m not sure it was meant to outlaw the kind of birth advantage I spoke of in the last paragraph. Even if we came to the conclusion that we should do so, I highly doubt we could.

It was also a statement of who was considered a "true human" in the day. Women, folks of color, even children were not given anything like "equal" recognition. Each was almost fully under the direction of their (obviously white) male "protector".

That said, it is a worthy ideal. And I believe, despite the founding father's intent (perhaps because of the intent of some.. hard to say for sure), we have come a long way toward achieving that goal.

The U.S. is just one big giant meat grinder. It's the perfect analogy for me because I've spent some time growing up in a few steak house kitchens. Basically, in a steak house kitchen, the hide of meat shows up and the filets, sirloins, and NY strips are cut off, and then what's left over that's still good meat gets put through the meat grinder and you're left with the beginnings of a tasty burger. In the U.S., the whole hide gets put through the meat grinder, the issue couldn't be more forced and then what ultimately happens is that the people who just weren't meant to go through the meat grinder under relatively modern normal western industrialized circumstances elect not to bring any biological kids of their own into the world. It's a real fuckin drag. I've said before, in some ways (not all), in some ways the times we live in right now are worse than the dark ages.

....AND EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO THE f*ck IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:
But once someone gets passed that point, how far they go depends on what they do. Some people don't push hard enough and fail miserably. Others grind through the dirt and make it.

This is classic failure of logic.
Truth is that some people get everthing, are lazy bums and harm society more than they help.
Truth is some can arise from the worst of circumstances and become great. Whatever you think of Oprah Winfrey personnally, for example, she arose from very "humble", even abusive beginnings and now has a world-wide impact.
BUT.. and this is the real key, looking at the extremes is like saying "well, if I get 15 sets of sixes in a row, I can win this game.". True, but how likely?

I'm going to have to disagree with what I BELIEVE you're saying. In my view, attitude really IS everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. If you have the drive and the attitude that you are going to make yourself into a success, you WILL make yourself into a success. Period.
What LEVEL of success may be determined by an amount of luck or whatever, but you will not NOT be a success.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:
I think this avoids the errors of both the extreme capitalists who, ignoring discrimination, claim anybody can succeed equally, and of the extreme liberals, who talk as if it's impossible to overcome and succeed.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the liberal view.

Perhaps you missed the word "extreme" there? I'm pretty sure he wasn't aiming for the generic liberal view.

Yoda Skywalker wrote:....AND EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO THE f*ck IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!

I'm not sure if you're referring to the Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists or aliens. Could you clarify?

Yoda Skywalker wrote:....AND EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO THE f*ck IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!

"I'm not sure if you're referring to the Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists or aliens. Could you clarify?"

Alright, everybody except Woodruff. Seriously, all things considered, there's about 300 million people in the U.S., all things considered, I'd say at the present time, today, about 80 million people know consciously, and about 120 million know subconsciouly. It's like turning on a light in a dark room. You hear it one time, by the right person, under the right circumstances and it all makes perfect sense.

Yoda Skywalker wrote:

Yoda Skywalker wrote:....AND EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO THE f*ck IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!

"I'm not sure if you're referring to the Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists or aliens. Could you clarify?"

Alright, everybody except Woodruff. Seriously, all things considered, there's about 300 million people in the U.S., all things considered, I'd say at the present time, today, about 80 million people know consciously, and about 120 million know subconsciouly. It's like turning on a light in a dark room. You hear it one time, by the right person, under the right circumstances and it all makes perfect sense.

So it is aliens?




And Player, I'm just wondering, does your husband consider himself a success, or a failure?

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is a gross misrepresentation of the liberal view. Liberals don't feel that its impossible for people to overcome and succeed, just far more difficult in some cases. Even so, few would say, for example, that someone being abused as a child gives you the right to be a criminal as an adult. However, a liberal is likely to say, "let's see if education/etc can change a person" and "in the meantime, "restraining the person from society is necessary, but it should be under humane conditions and with some avenue for improvement". Whereas the conservative is more likely to say "lock em all up!".

And then you look at the recidivism rate and see why liberalism's "good intentions" are grossly misguided. Anyone can change. The question is whether or not they have the desire to change. You can not make a person change, no matter how much liberal catering you want to throw at them. Before I switched shifts, I taught inmates through the program that my facility offers. Things like the 5 Steps of decision making, 12 steps of ASAT and so on. Many violate when they are released. Some come to the point that WANT to change and even then some succeed right away and some have setbacks. Being a criminal is a choice and until that person desires change, if ever, they will remain so. You can't "teach" change. You can only point out the benefits of it.


The rest of your post is just a slam on the RIGHT. (discarded as liberal propaganda)

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:
But once someone gets passed that point, how far they go depends on what they do. Some people don't push hard enough and fail miserably. Others grind through the dirt and make it.

This is classic failure of logic.
Truth is that some people get everthing, are lazy bums and harm society more than they help.
Truth is some can arise from the worst of circumstances and become great. Whatever you think of Oprah Winfrey personnally, for example, she arose from very "humble", even abusive beginnings and now has a world-wide impact.
BUT.. and this is the real key, looking at the extremes is like saying "well, if I get 15 sets of sixes in a row, I can win this game.". True, but how likely?

I'm going to have to disagree with what I BELIEVE you're saying. In my view, attitude really IS everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. If you have the drive and the attitude that you are going to make yourself into a success, you WILL make yourself into a success. Period.
What LEVEL of success may be determined by an amount of luck or whatever, but you will not NOT be a success.

Yes, but on a different level than in this discussion.

In the view of Neitzche (sp??? -- the philosopher who talked about the ultimat freedom being within oneself), for example, he could talk about having "won" or having "freedom" from gaurds in a prison camp because he could smile despite extreme depridation. In a less dramatic front, I can remember hearing about John Muir stuck in a snow storm, almost freezing to death and yet admiring the snow flakes as they fell. This is a much easier thing to talk about than to live, as I know well from BOTH sides.. that is looking positive in the face of adversity and letting adversity almost overwhelm me.

But I was not and don't believe the initial question really got into that sort of depth. I was talking pure superficials, the practical and so forth.

The other part I think you were addressing is something along the lines of my husband is a success, despite not being wealthy, because he has made such a profound and lasting impact on the area. I definitely agree with that. At the same time, not having to worry quite so much about the next bill would make that success a bit easier to enjoy. We have not taken any real vacation in years and the last few we have taken have been at other people's expense entirely.

The third aspect of that is more along the lines of "Think and grow Rich" or, Steven Covey, Dale Carnegie, The Secret, etc. They believe that attitude is all. I am more than a little familiar with this. They make a fundamental error. While it is true that without these things, one is unlikely to succeed, the reverse is definitely not true. You can have all the wonderful attitude in the world and while, in the Neitzche sense, it will make you feel better, there is definitely no given that wonderful things will come to you. People who make all the "right" choices, have the best of attitudes have horrible things happen and people who are absolute jerks, completely dishonest/cheats/make all sorts of wrong decisions, wind up succeeding.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:
I think this avoids the errors of both the extreme capitalists who, ignoring discrimination, claim anybody can succeed equally, and of the extreme liberals, who talk as if it's impossible to overcome and succeed.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the liberal view.

Perhaps you missed the word "extreme" there? I'm pretty sure he wasn't aiming for the generic liberal view.[/quote]
It is not even the "extreme" liberal view. It is what the far right tries to paint liberals as being... and their painting gets moved further and further to either extreme.

Just pointing out, while an interesting subject, the poll matter does not address in any way the issue of opportunity.

Army of GOD wrote:And Player, I'm just wondering, does your husband consider himself a success, or a failure?

Depends. He is absolutely proud of his sons. He puts up with a lot of frustration in coaching and things because he knows he makes a difference. A lot of parents ask to have their kids put on his team, which does make him feel good.

Right now, just having been laid off, he is a bit discouraged. However, he is finding out he has a lot of job offers and that makes him feel good. He is also frustrated when he sees so many, many whom he had known most of his life, who have not made the "right" choices (went into drugs, cheated on spouses, etc.) who seem to have everything.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:
But once someone gets passed that point, how far they go depends on what they do. Some people don't push hard enough and fail miserably. Others grind through the dirt and make it.

This is classic failure of logic.
Truth is that some people get everthing, are lazy bums and harm society more than they help.
Truth is some can arise from the worst of circumstances and become great. Whatever you think of Oprah Winfrey personnally, for example, she arose from very "humble", even abusive beginnings and now has a world-wide impact.
BUT.. and this is the real key, looking at the extremes is like saying "well, if I get 15 sets of sixes in a row, I can win this game.". True, but how likely?

I'm going to have to disagree with what I BELIEVE you're saying. In my view, attitude really IS everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. If you have the drive and the attitude that you are going to make yourself into a success, you WILL make yourself into a success. Period.
What LEVEL of success may be determined by an amount of luck or whatever, but you will not NOT be a success.

Yes, but on a different level than in this discussion.
In the view of Neitzche (sp??? -- the philosopher who talked about the ultimat freedom being within oneself), for example, he could talk about having "won" or having "freedom" from gaurds in a prison camp because he could smile despite extreme depridation. In a less dramatic front, I can remember hearing about John Muir stuck in a snow storm, almost freezing to death and yet admiring the snow flakes as they fell. This is a much easier thing to talk about than to live, as I know well from BOTH sides.. that is looking positive in the face of adversity and letting adversity almost overwhelm me.
But I was not and don't believe the initial question really got into that sort of depth. I was talking pure superficials, the practical and so forth.
The other part I think you were addressing is something along the lines of my husband is a success, despite not being wealthy, because he has made such a profound and lasting impact on the area. I definitely agree with that. At the same time, not having to worry quite so much about the next bill would make that success a bit easier to enjoy. We have not taken any real vacation in years and the last few we have taken have been at other people's expense entirely.
The third aspect of that is more along the lines of "Think and grow Rich" or, Steven Covey, Dale Carnegie, The Secret, etc. They believe that attitude is all. I am more than a little familiar with this. They make a fundamental error. While it is true that without these things, one is unlikely to succeed, the reverse is definitely not true. You can have all the wonderful attitude in the world and while, in the Neitzche sense, it will make you feel better, there is definitely no given that wonderful things will come to you. People who make all the "right" choices, have the best of attitudes have horrible things happen and people who are absolute jerks, completely dishonest/cheats/make all sorts of wrong decisions, wind up succeeding.

I find that I am still definitely disagreeing with you. Of course, bad things can happen to good people. But if the person is determined, those "bad things" simply aren't going to stop them. Period. In fact, I would suggest that you have it backward...while those with a crappy attitude CAN turn good, those with the right attitude CANNOT fail. And I'm not at all referring to the "smile in the face of adversity" attitude in any way...nor am I referring to "lasting impact on the area". I'm referring to the "by God, I AM going to succeed" attitude.

Woodruff wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with what I BELIEVE you're saying. In my view, attitude really IS everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. If you have the drive and the attitude that you are going to make yourself into a success, you WILL make yourself into a success. Period.
What LEVEL of success may be determined by an amount of luck or whatever, but you will not NOT be a success.

And I'm going to double-disagree here.

Let's just discount all the racism and sexism and all the prejudice that the poor face for convenience sake. Those are incredibly important factors for succes and wealth, but not central to my point. Those are to be ignored for this point even though they would already make your point unvalid or at the very least oversimplistic.


First, the important thing to remember here is that attitude isn't a genetic trait that can't be influenced from early on. As a kid one might be thoroughly convinced they will be the next President, but if their family and friends constantly tell them they're not going to because of sex/ethnicity/stupidness then after time it's reasonable to assume they will eventually stop with aspiring to be that. Stimulation and the absence of stimulation play a key-part in people's life. Succesfull people often talk about how their family and environment stimulated them to become what they are. They talk about mothers who worked 24/7 to support their child's talent, fathers who took them to the baseball field each day to train, teachers who gave them extra lessons in whatever field they excelled in and all that.

In this sense, attitude is important but without the support and help from your environment one's attitude will almost never be enough.


Secondly, given that attitude is flexible, it is not unreasonable to think that one's personal succes is influenced by factors out of their control. I'm not talking about racism and such, but about those things that simply happen. An unexpected pregnancy, a sudden disability of a parent which means you have to take care of them, a change in the field which means your dedication to something nets you nothing because someone else came up with it already or did what you wanted to do. That is not simply luck, because these things happen to different demographics on a different level. A brilliant mind born in a poor environment is still more likely to experience things like this than someone who grows up in a rich environment.

In the end, your succes is really always contained by your environment and circumstances.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:
I think this avoids the errors of both the extreme capitalists who, ignoring discrimination, claim anybody can succeed equally, and of the extreme liberals, who talk as if it's impossible to overcome and succeed.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the liberal view.

woodruff wrote:Perhaps you missed the word "extreme" there? I'm pretty sure he wasn't aiming for the generic liberal view.

It is not even the "extreme" liberal view. It is what the far right tries to paint liberals as being... and their painting gets moved further and further to either extreme.

Woodruff beat me to it here. My statement was balanced and fair, showing that both sides can exaggerate and ignore the truth in their opponents' point of view. Yours was what you accused mine of being: "The other side has all the unreasonable extremists."

I have actually heard people say that it is all fixed and impossible for certain classes of people to make it; haven't you? Yes that is the extreme of the liberal view, and yes there are people in the debate who hold it.

And yes, we do have to balance the truth that you determine your success at least partly by your attitude, with the fact that educational and employment opportunities are not completely fair and it is more difficult for those born in the out group. And yes, going to either extreme short-circuits the discussion and prevents solution.

I can't see how you can have a problem with that. Though I disagree with you on many things, you are usually reasonable.

daddy1gringo wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:
I think this avoids the errors of both the extreme capitalists who, ignoring discrimination, claim anybody can succeed equally, and of the extreme liberals, who talk as if it's impossible to overcome and succeed.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the liberal view.

woodruff wrote:Perhaps you missed the word "extreme" there? I'm pretty sure he wasn't aiming for the generic liberal view.

It is not even the "extreme" liberal view. It is what the far right tries to paint liberals as being... and their painting gets moved further and further to either extreme.

Woodruff beat me to it here. My statement was balanced and fair, showing that both sides can exaggerate and ignore the truth in their opponents' point of view. Yours was what you accused mine of being: "The other side has all the unreasonable extremists."

Your characterization of Conservatives more or less matches what many who call themselves conservative think. It is not truly an extreme right position any longer. What you said about liberals matches what only the very, very farthest fringe actually think. And the problem is that this is the exact kind of distortion that has been moving the bar of "moderate" further and further right.

Understand, I believe a lot who have formerly called themselves conservative are now finding themselves sharing many values with liberals.

daddy1gringo wrote:I have actually heard people say that it is all fixed and impossible for certain classes of people to make it; haven't you? Yes that is the extreme of the liberal view, and yes there are people in the debate who hold it.

Very difficult, yes. "Impossible", no, not really. The distinction is very important.

daddy1gringo wrote:And yes, we do have to balance the truth that you determine your success at least partly by your attitude, with the fact that educational and employment opportunities are not completely fair and it is more difficult for those born in the out group. And yes, going to either extreme short-circuits the discussion and prevents solution.

I can't see how you can have a problem with that. Though I disagree with you on many things, you are usually reasonable.

I agree with the paragraph above. The problem is that the right wing has worked very hard and almost succeeded in redefining what both conservativism and liberalism mean. I have less an issue with redefining what used to be "far right" into "conservative" because so many are happy to self-identify themselves that way. It causes some issue when reviewing recent history, but terms do change. However, I refuse to allow the right wing to set the definition for liberalism as just everything they abhor. Sadly, too many people seem to buy into that idea. That is why I object to your characterization.

Player makes an excellent point- for people outside the US it's often pretty weird to hear terms like "liberal" or "socialist" used as insults. You have to accept that they have been redefined as points of absolute evil. It gets really odd when presidents claim allies among European governments who are socialist.

Two nations, divided by a common language, sure, but changing the definition of words seems to me to be a peculiarly American habit, and is purely divisive:

"Abortion is murder"
"Fascism is socialism"
"Racism is what black people do to white people"

Ah, yeah- crude characterization, but it does speak to part of the right that doesn't want to deal with the terms of the debate as set. Redefine the terms instead, shoot the messenger if necessary, seek to divide us from them.

Woodruff wrote:I find that I am still definitely disagreeing with you. Of course, bad things can happen to good people. But if the person is determined, those "bad things" simply aren't going to stop them. Period. In fact, I would suggest that you have it backward...while those with a crappy attitude CAN turn good, those with the right attitude CANNOT fail. And I'm not at all referring to the "smile in the face of adversity" attitude in any way...nor am I referring to "lasting impact on the area". I'm referring to the "by God, I AM going to succeed" attitude.

I don't want to dissuad you from that belief, because there are few things more powerful. I will just say that there are a few.

Also, that kind of single-minded belief comes with sacrifice. Many who had the drive to do great things wound up ignoring family, for example. OK if you are a single adult, not so OK if you have kids. There are a lot of things I say "no" to that might benefit myself, but which would cause far too much harm to my children.

And that sort of gets to the other side of the question, that I also addressed. Just what is the gauge of "success"? The problem today is that we are again (it happens over and over in history) in a framework where a very few have been allowed to narrowly define "success" as mostly short-term economic success, with a "nod" to politics and such. Other things, like family, are given superficial acknowledgement, but nothing real and tangible.

Snorri1234 wrote:In the end, your succes is really always contained by your environment and circumstances.

Which is why nobody ever rises from poverty by sheer hard work. Ever.