I don't know what you were talking about, but I was talking about communism.lowing wrote:
yeah yeah yeah, for this discussion we are talking about POSSESSION now aren't we?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No. Class is a measure social standing. I.e. a measure of the 'power' one has within society.lowing wrote:
no actually a CEO could be clasified as "working class" by your difinition, he is after all working to run a company.
Class is meant to be divided by wealth, not by work ethic
lower class---poverty poor, low income
middle class--- majority of America, modest to very comfortable living.
upper class----- extremely comfortable living up to being rich
Whilst it is correct to say that 'power' and 'wealth' usually go hand-in-hand, they are not the same thing.
Poll
of the world could live decently?
| Yes | 43% | 43% - 50 | ||||
| No | 56% | 56% - 64 | ||||
| Total: 114 | ||||||
i want my luxury and more people should die so the world would be a better place like the poors dying or bums
death to starving poor people and bums or even just people who are suffering
there should only be 2-3 billion people exist rest of them should just die or everyone have birthcontrol for 30 years until there is 2-3 billion people left
death to starving poor people and bums or even just people who are suffering
there should only be 2-3 billion people exist rest of them should just die or everyone have birthcontrol for 30 years until there is 2-3 billion people left
it makes a better world when less people exist, because more money and more space plus less criminals or stupid or poor people
ok starting over:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I don't know what you were talking about, but I was talking about communism.lowing wrote:
yeah yeah yeah, for this discussion we are talking about POSSESSION now aren't we?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No. Class is a measure social standing. I.e. a measure of the 'power' one has within society.
Whilst it is correct to say that 'power' and 'wealth' usually go hand-in-hand, they are not the same thing.
I say, EVERYTHING you describe is communism. You say we all give up everything so we can ALL have the same shit. By doing that you are doing away with classes, by doing away with classes, you have just described communism
By describing communism I say NO, I will not want to give up my possessions so we can all be the same.
But, you would not be doing away with classes. You would be doing away with inequality of wealth.lowing wrote:
ok starting over:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I don't know what you were talking about, but I was talking about communism.lowing wrote:
yeah yeah yeah, for this discussion we are talking about POSSESSION now aren't we?
I say, EVERYTHING you describe is communism. You say we all give up everything so we can ALL have the same shit. By doing that you are doing away with classes, by doing away with classes, you have just described communism
By describing communism I say NO, I will not want to give up my possessions so we can all be the same.
hell yes, no question.
I dunno where the hell you have been living but if you do away with "inequality of wealth", which to me means we all have the same shit, then you have eliminated classes. period.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, you would not be doing away with classes. You would be doing away with inequality of wealth.lowing wrote:
ok starting over:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I don't know what you were talking about, but I was talking about communism.
I say, EVERYTHING you describe is communism. You say we all give up everything so we can ALL have the same shit. By doing that you are doing away with classes, by doing away with classes, you have just described communism
By describing communism I say NO, I will not want to give up my possessions so we can all be the same.
No.lowing wrote:
I dunno where the hell you have been living but if you do away with "inequality of wealth", which to me means we all have the same shit, then you have eliminated classes. period.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, you would not be doing away with classes. You would be doing away with inequality of wealth.lowing wrote:
ok starting over:
I say, EVERYTHING you describe is communism. You say we all give up everything so we can ALL have the same shit. By doing that you are doing away with classes, by doing away with classes, you have just described communism
By describing communism I say NO, I will not want to give up my possessions so we can all be the same.
Class is not a measure of wealth. Class is a measure of social power.
Which part of that do you not understand?
A better question would be, How do you not understand, it is the same damn thing???? wealth equals power.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No.lowing wrote:
I dunno where the hell you have been living but if you do away with "inequality of wealth", which to me means we all have the same shit, then you have eliminated classes. period.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, you would not be doing away with classes. You would be doing away with inequality of wealth.
Class is not a measure of wealth. Class is a measure of social power.
Which part of that do you not understand?
in the context of social classes, give me an example where it DOES NOT.
no my friend, im 24 and i busted my ass to get where i am at.......im sorry my grip on reality isnt the same as yours.....oh and being born into my family and into my city gets you a single parent in what is the #1 most dangerous city in the usa.....go to school, find something your good at and be happy.THESAVAGE1 wrote:
Parker has a business??!!! You have to be kidding!!! What a load of shit. You've got to be 12 years old max.
" they made poor decisions " - LOL. Like not being born in your family?? In your city???
Get a grip you knob jockey.
thanks though
The obvious one is Monarchy. The Queen is the Queen because of the class she was born into, not the wealth that she has aquired.lowing wrote:
A better question would be, How do you not understand, it is the same damn thing???? wealth equals power.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No.lowing wrote:
I dunno where the hell you have been living but if you do away with "inequality of wealth", which to me means we all have the same shit, then you have eliminated classes. period.
Class is not a measure of wealth. Class is a measure of social power.
Which part of that do you not understand?
in the context of social classes, give me an example where it DOES NOT.
Is the Queen Wealthy???...........Did the queen of old have power??..yup and yup.............Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The obvious one is Monarchy. The Queen is the Queen because of the class she was born into, not the wealth that she has aquired.lowing wrote:
A better question would be, How do you not understand, it is the same damn thing???? wealth equals power.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No.
Class is not a measure of wealth. Class is a measure of social power.
Which part of that do you not understand?
in the context of social classes, give me an example where it DOES NOT.
Her power does not come from her wealth.lowing wrote:
Is the Queen Wealthy???...........Did the queen of old have power??..yup and yup.............Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The obvious one is Monarchy. The Queen is the Queen because of the class she was born into, not the wealth that she has aquired.lowing wrote:
A better question would be, How do you not understand, it is the same damn thing???? wealth equals power.
in the context of social classes, give me an example where it DOES NOT.
And in fact the Queen isn't all that wealthy, most of her 'wealth' is owned by the country, not by her, nor by her family. There are numerous people in this country who are more wealthy than the Queen, not one of them wields anywhere near the kind of power that she (even in this day and age) does.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stm
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-10 20:26:22)
I voted yes, but only for people like in africa or some other third word country who don't have the means to get anything. In no way would I ever give anything willingly to some dumbass on wellfare or social security who just sit on their asses all day and expect my taxes to pay for them because they are to lazy to get a dam job! I hate those fags! Welfare needs to be fixed, as well as social security... Aww the hell with it, just get rid of all the dam rednecks. I'd swap them for a hard working mexican or other foreigner any day!!!!
Dude, do you see what the fuck you are doing???.......We are talking about classes in an every day context of society, and you have to jump to the QUEEN OF FUCKING ENGLAND to try and prove a point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Her power does not come from her wealth.lowing wrote:
Is the Queen Wealthy???...........Did the queen of old have power??..yup and yup.............Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The obvious one is Monarchy. The Queen is the Queen because of the class she was born into, not the wealth that she has aquired.
And in fact the Queen isn't all that wealthy, most of her 'wealth' is owned by the country, not by her, nor by her family. There are numerous people in this country who are more wealthy than the Queen, not one of them wields anywhere near the kind of power that she (even in this day and age) does.
secondly, you can dissect it all you want until you find an answer that makes you feel good but the bottom line is
Does the Queen have power......... yes
Does the Queen have wealth.........yes
HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy.............yes
HAS EVERY OCCUPIER of the throne had power...........yes
I used the Queen as an example because it was the obvious one.lowing wrote:
Dude, do you see what the fuck you are doing???.......We are talking about classes in an every day context of society, and you have to jump to the QUEEN OF FUCKING ENGLAND to try and prove a point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Her power does not come from her wealth.lowing wrote:
Is the Queen Wealthy???...........Did the queen of old have power??..yup and yup.............
And in fact the Queen isn't all that wealthy, most of her 'wealth' is owned by the country, not by her, nor by her family. There are numerous people in this country who are more wealthy than the Queen, not one of them wields anywhere near the kind of power that she (even in this day and age) does.
secondly, you can dissect it all you want until you find an answer that makes you feel good but the bottom line is
Does the Queen have power......... yes
Does the Queen have wealth.........yes
HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy.............yes
HAS EVERY OCCUPIER of the throne had power...........yes
And as I've already stated, the Queen is not all that wealthy.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stm
The queen is the 133rd wealthiest person in this country (at the time of that report).[JK Rowlings] £280m makes her the wealthiest woman in showbusiness and Britain's 122nd richest person - 11 places higher than the Queen.
Now who has more power - JK Rowling or the Queen?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-10 20:35:08)
I don't like doing this but let me answer your question with a question:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I used the Queen as an example because it was the obvious one.lowing wrote:
Dude, do you see what the fuck you are doing???.......We are talking about classes in an every day context of society, and you have to jump to the QUEEN OF FUCKING ENGLAND to try and prove a point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Her power does not come from her wealth.
And in fact the Queen isn't all that wealthy, most of her 'wealth' is owned by the country, not by her, nor by her family. There are numerous people in this country who are more wealthy than the Queen, not one of them wields anywhere near the kind of power that she (even in this day and age) does.
secondly, you can dissect it all you want until you find an answer that makes you feel good but the bottom line is
Does the Queen have power......... yes
Does the Queen have wealth.........yes
HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy.............yes
HAS EVERY OCCUPIER of the throne had power...........yes
And as I've already stated, the Queen is not all that wealthy.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stmThe queen is the 133rd wealthiest person in this country (at the time of that report).[JK Rowlings] £280m makes her the wealthiest woman in showbusiness and Britain's 122nd richest person - 11 places higher than the Queen.
Now who has more power - JK Rowling or the Queen?
Are you stating that JK Rowling is a lower class citizen??? I dare you to say yes and mean it.
Lower than the Queen. Yes.lowing wrote:
I don't like doing this but let me answer your question with a question:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I used the Queen as an example because it was the obvious one.lowing wrote:
Dude, do you see what the fuck you are doing???.......We are talking about classes in an every day context of society, and you have to jump to the QUEEN OF FUCKING ENGLAND to try and prove a point.
secondly, you can dissect it all you want until you find an answer that makes you feel good but the bottom line is
Does the Queen have power......... yes
Does the Queen have wealth.........yes
HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy.............yes
HAS EVERY OCCUPIER of the throne had power...........yes
And as I've already stated, the Queen is not all that wealthy.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stmThe queen is the 133rd wealthiest person in this country (at the time of that report).[JK Rowlings] £280m makes her the wealthiest woman in showbusiness and Britain's 122nd richest person - 11 places higher than the Queen.
Now who has more power - JK Rowling or the Queen?
Are you stating that JK Rowling is a lower class citizen??? I dare you to say yes and mean it.
Oh, also, I'll try and find a link, but to answer your question "HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy?" - no - Queen Elizabeth I was quite poor indeed.
IS JK ROWLING an upper class, middle class, or lower class citizen??? I am not asking you to compare her to fucking heads of states, as a British citizen, how is she classified??Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Lower than the Queen. Yes.lowing wrote:
I don't like doing this but let me answer your question with a question:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I used the Queen as an example because it was the obvious one.lowing wrote:
Dude, do you see what the fuck you are doing???.......We are talking about classes in an every day context of society, and you have to jump to the QUEEN OF FUCKING ENGLAND to try and prove a point.
secondly, you can dissect it all you want until you find an answer that makes you feel good but the bottom line is
Does the Queen have power......... yes
Does the Queen have wealth.........yes
HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy.............yes
HAS EVERY OCCUPIER of the throne had power...........yes
And as I've already stated, the Queen is not all that wealthy.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stm
The queen is the 133rd wealthiest person in this country (at the time of that report).
Now who has more power - JK Rowling or the Queen?
Are you stating that JK Rowling is a lower class citizen??? I dare you to say yes and mean it.
Oh, also, I'll try and find a link, but to answer your question "HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy?" - no - Queen Elizabeth I was quite poor indeed.
I don't know enough about her background, but middle class at best, possibly even working class. IIRC, she was a teacher before she wrote Harry Potter.lowing wrote:
IS JK ROWLING an upper class, middle class, or lower class citizen??? I am not asking you to compare her to fucking heads of states, as a British citizen, how is she classified??Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Lower than the Queen. Yes.lowing wrote:
I don't like doing this but let me answer your question with a question:
Are you stating that JK Rowling is a lower class citizen??? I dare you to say yes and mean it.
Oh, also, I'll try and find a link, but to answer your question "HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy?" - no - Queen Elizabeth I was quite poor indeed.
When I say this I don't mean it in a hostile way, this has been a very amicable exchange, however, you are so fulla shit it is coming out of your eyes.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I don't know enough about her background, but middle class at best, possibly even working class. IIRC, she was a teacher before she wrote Harry Potter.lowing wrote:
IS JK ROWLING an upper class, middle class, or lower class citizen??? I am not asking you to compare her to fucking heads of states, as a British citizen, how is she classified??Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Lower than the Queen. Yes.
Oh, also, I'll try and find a link, but to answer your question "HAS EVERY occupier of the throne been wealthy?" - no - Queen Elizabeth I was quite poor indeed.
You are actually saying the richest woman in England is "middle class at best"...... I defy you to find 1 shred of internet to back that up.
In that case you won't think it hostile when I say you're so full of shit that it's coming out of your eyes.lowing wrote:
When I say this I don't mean it in a hostile way, this has been a very amicable exchange, however, you are so fulla shit it is coming out of your eyes.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I don't know enough about her background, but middle class at best, possibly even working class. IIRC, she was a teacher before she wrote Harry Potter.lowing wrote:
IS JK ROWLING an upper class, middle class, or lower class citizen??? I am not asking you to compare her to fucking heads of states, as a British citizen, how is she classified??
You are actually saying the richest woman in England is "middle class at best"...... I defy you to find 1 shred of internet to back that up.
And I defy you to find one shred of any evidence anywhere to back up your claims.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-10 20:56:49)
All humans-hell no. I don't want idiots and assholes to be on easy streak
Some of humanity-that's what charity is for
However, aren't I part of the human race? If I give everything up I wouldn't be living decently, so I'm giving all my stuff to strangers
Some of humanity-that's what charity is for
However, aren't I part of the human race? If I give everything up I wouldn't be living decently, so I'm giving all my stuff to strangers
Well, that didn't take long.lowing wrote:
I defy you to find 1 shred of internet to back that up.
http://www.gale.com/free_resources/whm/ … ing_jk.htm
Rowling was born near Bristol, England, the daughter of middle-class parents.
Actually, I am not going to do thatScorpion0x17 wrote:
In that case you won't think it hostile when I say you're so full of shit that it's coming out of your eyes.lowing wrote:
When I say this I don't mean it in a hostile way, this has been a very amicable exchange, however, you are so fulla shit it is coming out of your eyes.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I don't know enough about her background, but middle class at best, possibly even working class. IIRC, she was a teacher before she wrote Harry Potter.
You are actually saying the richest woman in England is "middle class at best"...... I defy you to find 1 shred of internet to back that up.
And I defy you to find one shred of any evidence anywhere to back up your claims.
YOU are are the one that makes the ludicrous claim that the most wealthy woman in England is nothing more than a middle class citizen.
I know you don't beleive that, you just can't say it without conceding your argument that social class has nothing to do with wealth.
from dictionary.com
upper class
a class of people above the middle class, having the highest social rank or standing based on WEALTH, family connections, and the like.
middle class
1. a class of people intermediate between the classes of higher and lower social rank or standing; the social, ECONOMIC, cultural class, having approximately average status, INCOME, education, tastes, and the like.
1. a class of people below the middle class, having the lowest social rank or standing due to LOW INCOME, lack of skills or education, and the like.
funny POWER isn't meantioned in any one of them.................the end.