-->
@ebuc
You're so dumb. Extinction is a part of evolution. We wouldn't exist if the dinosaurs were on the planet.
POOR = BAD
Posts
Total:
99
-->
@Greyparrot
False Greyparroted kuckoo bird. Please learn to use a dictionary for starters and then try to move beyond simple understanding to more complex comprehension of these issues.Extinction is a part of evolution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution is irrelevant to extinction. Conservative right wing republicans do not care because they lack access to their empathy centers and cannot get beyond personal principles of money over all other is what matter most to them and they falsely believe matters most to humanity.
Poor = bad to conservative right wing republicans and after they eat the brown skinned people they will eat their own in order to have the most money and influence. They like Trump because trump is the pinnacle of 'its all about me' and that is the bottom line for those who chase money above all else.
-->
@ebuc
all evolution is built on the fossils of 99.9% of all species gone extinct. Crack open a science book someday.
-->
@Greyparrot
Historical record of biological life includes both extinction and evolution.all evolution is built on the fossils of 99.9% of all species gone extinct. Crack open a science book someday.
When your able to distingush the differrence between evolution and extinction of humans on Earth get back to me.
When decide to read a dictionary please share the word extinction in the definition of evolution.
Extinction is the end of evolution.
When you come to a stop sign motion{ evolution } ends.
Greyporrated kuckoo bird, please try and use rational, logical common sense.
-->
@ebuc
Evolution is irrelevant to extinction. Conservative right wing republicans do not care because they lack access to their empathy centers and cannot get beyond personal principles of money over all other is what matter most to them and they falsely believe matters most to humanity.Poor = bad to conservative right wing republicans and after they eat the brown skinned people they will eat their own in order to have the most money and influence. They like Trump because trump is the pinnacle of 'its all about me' and that is the bottom line for those who chase money above all else.
-->
@Snoopy
Nice Baltimore clip,
But you can go too far in both directions...
Oklahoma isn’t the only red state in tax-cut distress. Lawmakers in GOP-led Kansas, Indiana, Missouri and Mississippi are debating ways of raising more revenue to ease budget problems. In neighboring Arkansas, where Republicans recently won control of the statehouse, GOP leaders approved a more modest tax cut proposal than many conservatives wanted. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Glad you liked it.
“There’s been this persistent argument that if we cut taxes, the economy will grow enough to make up for the lost revenue, and it just simply doesn’t happen,”
Classic
Poor people should be judged based on the life choices that they made that made them poor in the first place.
-->
@Christen
Yes, silly fools should not have chosen to be born into poor families. Perhaps they will learn their lesson for next time.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If someone begins their live as a poor person, they should learn to make better life choices so that they can escape poverty as soon as possible. Otherwise it will just create this endless cycle of "poor parent > poor child > poor child grows up into poor parent > another poor child born > that poor child grows up to become poor > becomes the parent of another poor child" and so on.
-->
@Christen
Exactly. The first choice a person makes is what family to be born into. If they chose a poor family then they chose wrong.
Like you say, they should make better choices. That is one example of a choice they could improve on.
-->
@Christen
...it will just create this endless cycle of "poor parent > poor child > poor child grows up into poor parent > another poor child born > that poor child grows up to become poor > becomes the parent of another poor child" and so on.
Statistically, this is ALREADY a verifiable fact.
How is this the child's fault?
How is this the child's responsibility to fix?
-->
@3RU7AL
@Discipulus_Didicit
I get it. You can't control what kind of family you're born into.
You can however, control what decisions you make after you're born into that family. If you can slowly work your way out of poverty, you can then end your cycle of generations of poor children. Alternatively, If poor people who were born into poor families and could not work their ways out of poverty, the simplest thing to do would be to not have kids yourself, which would also break that cycle.
If you are unhapoy that you were born into a poor family, why put another newborn child through that same situation?
If only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken, and if the poor people stopped continuing to have kids, the cycle wouldn't continue, and you wouldn't keep having more and more kids born into the same kind of poor family that you were born into.
Part of the issue is that newborns grow up to repeat the same mistakes their parents made, which is having kids themselves while in such poverty. The least a person born into a poor family can do is stop the cycle by stop having kids to continue the cycle in the first place.
Since there are some things you cannot control, it just makes sense to instead focus on what you can control.
-->
@Christen
I get it. You can't control what kind of family you're born into.You can however, control what decisions you make after you're born into that family. If you can slowly work your way out of poverty, you can then end your cycle of generations of poor children. Alternatively, If poor people who were born into poor families and could not work their ways out of poverty, the simplest thing to do would be to not have kids yourself, which would also break that cycle.If you are unhapoy that you were born into a poor family, why put another newborn child through that same situation?If only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken, and if the poor people stopped continuing to have kids, the cycle wouldn't continue, and you wouldn't keep having more and more kids born into the same kind of poor family that you were born into.Part of the issue is that newborns grow up to repeat the same mistakes their parents made, which is having kids themselves while in such poverty. The least a person born into a poor family can do is stop the cycle by stop having kids to continue the cycle in the first place.Since there are some things you cannot control, it just makes sense to instead focus on what you can control.
I've got a movie you need to see, [LINK]
-->
@Christen
I get it. You can't control what kind of family you're born into.You can however, control what decisions you make after you're born into that family. If you can slowly work your way out of poverty, you can then end your cycle of generations of poor children.
I agree. When all is said and done, one's life is one's own responsibility. And those who pedal these initiatives to address poverty, usually take no actions themselves to help the poor, but instead endorse or sponsor policy which coerces others to do it.
If only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken, and if the poor people stopped continuing to have kids, the cycle wouldn't continue, and you wouldn't keep having more and more kids born into the same kind of poor family that you were born into.
Surely there are ways to ending the cycle other than putting an end to reproduction. Poverty isn't hereditary. While I don't disagree with you entirely, as I do believe that family planning should include the option of not having children, your stance that "if only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken," isn't particularly substantiated. One can instruct one's child and leave said child the right impression. And no amount of money can purchase that. There can be functional poor families and dysfunctional wealthy families; and I've been a witness to both.
-->
@Christen
I get it. You can't control what kind of family you're born into.
I agree.
You can however, control what decisions you make after you're born into that family.
Children imitate their parents and or peers. Children generally don't make intelligent, well informed, long-term decisions. The (poor) decisions you make as a child set the foundation for the rest of your life.
If you can slowly work your way out of poverty, you can then end your cycle of generations of poor children.
Not necessarily. Statistically speaking, you're fighting an uphill battle for at least two generations.
Alternatively, If poor people who were born into poor families and could not work their ways out of poverty, the simplest thing to do would be to not have kids yourself, which would also break that cycle.
You don't seem to understand why people have children. Testosterone is a fertility hormone. Male testosterone levels spike between ages 16 and 25.
If you are unhapoy that you were born into a poor family, why put another newborn child through that same situation?
Newsflash, poor people don't choose to have children because they think it's a great idea.
If only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken, and if the poor people stopped continuing to have kids, the cycle wouldn't continue, and you wouldn't keep having more and more kids born into the same kind of poor family that you were born into.
Economics 101. The rich make their money on the backs of the poor. Without poor people, there would be no rich people. CHEAP LABOR is the life-blood of the Free-Market. [LINK]
Part of the issue is that newborns grow up to repeat the same mistakes their parents made, which is having kids themselves while in such poverty.
Are you advocating mandatory sterilization? Do you have any idea what human survival instinct is? Do you know how money works?
The least a person born into a poor family can do is stop the cycle by stop having kids to continue the cycle in the first place.
Poor people are "forced" to live in cheaper neighborhoods. More often than not, these poor areas have higher levels of air and water pollution (near factories, freeways, etcetera).
Pollution has been shown to increase heath risks and contribute to low IQ scores.
Since there are some things you cannot control, it just makes sense to instead focus on what you can control.
I'm not sure what specific course of action you're recommending with this statement. Please explain further.
-->
@3RU7AL
Lots of people like Christen and Alec talk as if they took a decent-quality personal finance class but mistook it for an economics class.
It would be like taking a psychology class and mistaking it for a sociology class.
They simply can't wrap their head around the idea that a group of 7.4 billion people is going to interact differently than a group of two to six people.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lots of people like Christen and Alec talk as if they took a decent-quality personal finance class but mistook it for an economics class.It would be like taking a psychology class and mistaking it for a sociology class.They simply can't wrap their head around the idea that a group of 7.4 billion people is going to interact differently than a group of two to six people.
BINGO.
-->
@3RU7AL
Economics 101. The rich make their money on the backs of the poor. Without poor people, there would be no rich people. CHEAP LABOR is the life-blood of the Free-Market.
That's not "Economics 101." If you took economics 101 you may have learned the concept of profit maximization which doesn't always mean paying cheap labor. A glaring example of this are private hospitals and law firms. They pay their employees a lot of money because of the commerce they generate. Another example would be professional basketball players a la NBA players. Superstar players make north of 200 million dollars. Their team owners are billionaires. That's an example of the rich making money of the backs of the rich. Your statement, for lack of better terms, is just Marxist nonsense.
-->
@Athias
Economics 101. The rich make their money on the backs of the poor. Without poor people, there would be no rich people. CHEAP LABOR is the life-blood of the Free-Market.That's not "Economics 101." If you took economics 101 you may have learned the concept of profit maximization which doesn't always mean paying cheap labor. A glaring example of this are private hospitals and law firms. They pay their employees a lot of money because of the commerce they generate. Another example would be professional basketball players a la NBA players. Superstar players make north of 200 million dollars. Their team owners are billionaires. That's an example of the rich making money of the backs of the rich. Your statement, for lack of better terms, is just Marxist nonsense.
Look, your "skilled labor" examples are outliers. Yes, some jobs pay well, nobody is arguing the opposite.
HoweVER, as just an example, microchip factory-laboratories moved to Malaysia (from the USA), built super-modern facilities in the middle of nowhere and trained (converting unskilled-labor and creating skilled-labor) the barely literate natives to run the place. BECAUSE IT SAVED THEM MONEY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO TRAIN PEOPLE FROM SCRATCH THAN TO HIRE COLLEGE GRADUATES (and because the local government let them write their own labor and health and safety laws/regulations).
-->
@Athias
Another example would be college basketball players a la NCAA players. Superstar players make north of $0 million dollars. Their team owners are billionaires. That's an example of the rich making money of the backs of the poor-vulnerable-suckers.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Alec
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Athias
One can instruct one's child and leave said child the right impression. And no amount of money can purchase that. There can be functional poor families and dysfunctional wealthy families; and I've been a witness to both.
Okay, fair enough. If you do choose to have a child while poor, the least you can do is try to teach that child to be a great person so thay they don't continue the cycle of poverty in future generations. After all, parents should strive to get their kids to be better than the previous generation, regardless if they are poor or not.
Children generally don't make intelligent, well informed, long-term decisions.
We all have made decisions in our lives that were not intelligent or well-informed. It just depends on whether or not people learn from the mistakes they make so that they don't repeat them, and, if they happen to have kids, teach those kids about the mistakes they made so that those kids learn not to repeat their parents' mistakes.
Statistically speaking, you're fighting an uphill battle for at least two generations.
Right, so we need to do what we can to make sure we don't have future generations that are also forced to endure the same uphill battle that we did, and try to make each generation better and stronger than the last.
You don't seem to understand why people have children. Testosterone is a fertility hormone. Male testosterone levels spike between ages 16 and 25.
The rich make their money on the backs of the poor. Without poor people, there would be no rich people.
These are just bad excuses for having kids when you are so poor that you can barely take care of yourself first.
If you've ever been on an airplane, you'll notice how they always remind you to be sure to put your mask on before helping others. In other words, you need to make sure you're taking good care of yourself before you can take good care of others.
That's the problem with poor dysfunctional people. They are trying to bring a child into this world and take care of them when they can barely afford to take care of themselves and pay their own bills. That results in the cycle continuing. To end it, you should make sure you aren't in such poverty and that you can take care of yourself before having a child, or just don't have one that you can't afford, and, like Athias said, you can have poor but functional families and rich but dysfunctional families. The most appropriate families to have kids are the financially stable and functional people.
I'm not sure what specific course of action you're recommending
I'm recommending that people make better life choices and/or encourage their future generations to do the same. Having kids can backfire and lead to the cycle repeating itself if you don't know what you're doing. Just like how you put your mask on before helping others, you put yourself in a financially stable and functional position before dealing with a child.
Lots of people like Christen and Alec talk as if they took a decent-quality personal finance class but mistook it for an economics class.
These aren't even arguments. Their insults, and you could end up hurting my feelings or Alec's feelings by saying this. What did Alec even say that made you conclude this?
-->
@3RU7AL
Look, your "skilled labor" examples are outliers.
Actually, it's not an outlier. As our economy moves from its tertiary sector, to its quaternary sector, skilled labor is becoming the norm.
Yes, some jobs pay well, nobody is arguing the opposite.
No, you only argued that the rich made their fortunes off the back of the poor, and that cheap-labor is the "life-blood" of the free market. And that isn't true.
HoweVER, as just an example, microchip factory-laboratories moved to Malaysia (from the USA), built super-modern facilities in the middle of nowhere and trained (converting unskilled-labor and creating skilled-labor) the barely literate natives to run the place. BECAUSE IT SAVED THEM MONEY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO TRAIN PEOPLE FROM SCRATCH THAN TO HIRE COLLEGE GRADUATES (and because the local government let them write their own labor and health and safety laws/regulations).
So what's truly at fault here? The labor laws of the United States or the hiring practices of the microchip companies? And if you google the average salary of those who are in the microchip industry, it's about $82,000, or do they not count in the collection of backs off which the rich make their fortune?
Another example would be college basketball players a la NCAA players. Superstar players make north of $0 million dollars. Their team owners are billionaires. That's an example of the rich making money of the backs of the poor-vulnerable-suckers.
Let's forget their scholarships and that these schools offer a public platform for them to showcase their skills which may gain them entry into an industry where they can cultivate a lucrative career. It's not like there's ever been prospects who have foregone pay (e.g. apprenticeships and internships) to acquire experience in their field of endeavor. And if the pay is unsatisfactory for these college students, why not forego their obligations including their scholarships, and join the G-League or the JBA?
-->
@Athias
So what's truly at fault here? The labor laws of the United States or the hiring practices of the microchip companies?
The violation of human rights is at fault. Unbridled greed is at fault. People who habitually BLAME THE VICTIM are at fault.
And if you google the average salary of those who are in the microchip industry, it's about $82,000, or do they not count in the collection of backs off which the rich make their fortune?
Some people get paid well. Nobody is arguing the opposite. BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS POOR PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHAIN.
Here's an example of one of these outsourced chip-fabs, [LINK]
Here's how much they pay in India, which is significantly better developed (than Malaysia), [LINK]
It looks like an annual salary of 338,000 rupees = $4,717.47 USD per year.
YOU JUST SAVED - $77,282.53 USD per person per year!!
-->
@3RU7AL
Talking about economics with people that just don't understand the concept...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYExETbLL1E (From timestamp 3:38 to 6:24)
-->
@3RU7AL
The violation of human rights is at fault.
Do you have a reference for these microchip companies violating human rights.
Unbridled greed is at fault.
Insignificant statement.
People who habitually BLAME THE VICTIM are at fault.
Who are these victims and how have they been victimized?
Some people get paid well. Nobody is arguing the opposite.
No, you argued that the rich make their fortunes off the backs of the poor, and I have given you at least three examples where that is not the case. You assert that this mechanism is fundamental to the free-market, but you have yet to substantiate this assertion especially in the advent of my counterexamples.
BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS POOR PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHAIN.
Which chain is that? Are you assuming that there's only one sector of the economy or industry?
A sophistic argument. Do you mind submitting the costs of living in both India and Malaysia?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I agree. And being versed in economics as I am, I'm quite confident in my presumption that neither you nor 3RU7AL know much about it, instead citing insubstantial youtube videos as counterarguments.Talking about economics with people that just don't understand the concept...
-->
@Athias
I do not recall citing youtube videos nor making a serious counterargument against anything you have said. In fact I don't recall even reading or responding to anything you have said.