Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

Poll

of the world could live decently?

Yes43%43% - 50
No56%56% - 64
Total: 114
2006-11-10 22:56:44
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7030|PNW

CommieChipmunk wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Sooooorry, sheesh

everyone else found it fairly self explanatory..

CommieChipmunk wrote:

It's a fairly simple poll.  If the option was presented to you, would you decline, leaving the millions around the world still starving or accept so that everyone would live in mediocrity? 

It's not quite as black and white as that but you know what I mean.
It's a fairly simple task to decipher what you really meant, but you really should've written it better. It was presented as a 'fill in the blank' question, without the blank.
sorry
Apology accepted,
https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/unnamednewbie13/needa.jpg.

PS: Fix your op, then. Including half of the question in the title area doesn't make up for lack of content.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-10 22:59:20)

2006-11-10 23:00:25
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6828|Portland, OR, USA
done and done
2006-11-10 23:13:29
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7030|PNW

CommieChipmunk wrote:

done and done

CommieChipmunk wrote:

It's a fairly simple poll.  If the option was presented to you (would you give up your luxuries so all of the world would live decently) would you decline, leaving the millions around the world still starving and living in poverty.  Or accept so that everyone would live in mediocrity but every one would be semi-equal? 


And no I'm not talking communism here..

It's not quite as black and white as that but you know what I mean.
Now that it's reworded, the answer's still no. To accomplish that sort of societal utopia anytime soon (meaning within the span of a few thousand years), you would still have to alter human nature and desires on a genetic level, a process which I consider to be on an unacceptable level of techno-danger.

If, on a ridiculously hypothetical levels, I could throw out all of my toys and be guaranteed peace and equality in the world [insert](without it degenerating into a dystopic caste system or some other such nightmare planet)[/insert] because of it, I would in a heartbeat. But until such conditions exist to allow for that kind of absurd possibility, I would reject any such offer as an unforgivable scam.

Destroying luxury would also ruin the livelihoods of those who provide it. One could also consider education beyond your normal tasks to be a luxury, which would encompass reading. To be regulated, and by whom? Ray Bradbury ftw.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-10 23:22:39)

2006-11-11 00:18:25
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6828|Portland, OR, USA
Yeah I agree, it's all theoretical.  There's no way it'll happen lol...
2006-11-11 03:05:26
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina
If I wouldn't be able to make more money to regain the luxuries, absolutely no.  I'm socialist no communist.  I pay income taxes and VAT, let the government use the money to help those in need.
2006-11-11 04:44:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

You're the one that needs to concede the argument.

You present a very American view of class, which I can only assume is because you live in America and America is a country where wealth is everything.

I live in a country where wealth means nothing more than what brand of soap you buy.

And, you know what, we've had a class system for far longer than modern america has even existed.

You're the one with a distorted view of class labeling, not me.

But then, if you are american, that's not your fault...
Tell ya what, I showed you my "shred of evidence that wealth divides classes.

Now your turn.........show me evidence that JK ROWLINGS or any other filthy rich Englishman that is classified as a lower class citizen in the UK. You do that, and  I will concede.
I already have. JK Rowling was born to middle class parents. She, therefor, is middle class. Her wealth does not change that fact.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

in the US, Money is power...
Yep, I know. Don't you wish your country were more like ours?
ok fine, then show me something that has UK's social classes defined where wealth is not a factor.

Or, I will take any example you can give where a filthy rich person in the UK is labeled as lower class..

Really I can't beleive you are even trying to argue this. talk about stubborn. You are wrong and yo know it, all you have offered is your opinion, I have given you the exact definitions of social classes and you still won't accept them. utterly rediculous.

next post have a link to something that proves your point.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-11 04:45:30)

2006-11-11 05:47:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6839|SE London

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ya know, there is a time to concede an argument. I don't care if you concede this one or not, but you are really walking a fine line of desperation by trying to defend your position about class labeling. Almost to the point of rediculous.
You're the one that needs to concede the argument.

You present a very American view of class, which I can only assume is because you live in America and America is a country where wealth is everything.

I live in a country where wealth means nothing more than what brand of soap you buy.

And, you know what, we've had a class system for far longer than modern america has even existed.

You're the one with a distorted view of class labeling, not me.

But then, if you are american, that's not your fault...
Tell ya what, I showed you my "shred of evidence that wealth divides classes.

Now your turn.........show me evidence that JK ROWLINGS or any other filthy rich Englishman that is classified as a lower class citizen in the UK. You do that, and  I will concede.
In the UK the only way of becoming upper class is by birth or marriage. You can be working class and make lots of money and then become middle class (although the money is not the determining factor, but it helps), but you can never become upper class, which in the UK essentially means members of the aristocracy. You might be unfamilliar with this concept lowing, because there is no upper class, as defined in the UK, in the US.

wiki wrote:

In the United Kingdom, entry to the upper class is still considered difficult, if not impossible to attain unless one is born into it. Marriage into upper-class families rarely results in complete integration, since many factors (to be outlined below) raise a challenging barrier between the upper, upper middle, and middle classes.
Francis Fulford is a good example of a poverty stricken member of the upper class.

Likewise a highly successful builder or plumber can make a very good living (upto about £100000pa), they would still be considered working class, because of their vocation.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-11 05:57:13)

2006-11-11 06:08:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

You're the one that needs to concede the argument.

You present a very American view of class, which I can only assume is because you live in America and America is a country where wealth is everything.

I live in a country where wealth means nothing more than what brand of soap you buy.

And, you know what, we've had a class system for far longer than modern america has even existed.

You're the one with a distorted view of class labeling, not me.

But then, if you are american, that's not your fault...
Tell ya what, I showed you my "shred of evidence that wealth divides classes.

Now your turn.........show me evidence that JK ROWLINGS or any other filthy rich Englishman that is classified as a lower class citizen in the UK. You do that, and  I will concede.
In the UK the only way of becoming upper class is by birth or marriage. You can be working class and make lots of money and then become middle class (although the money is not the determining factor, but it helps), but you can never become upper class, which in the UK essentially means members of the aristocracy. You might be unfamilliar with this concept lowing, because there is no upper class, as defined in the UK, in the US.

wiki wrote:

In the United Kingdom, entry to the upper class is still considered difficult, if not impossible to attain unless one is born into it. Marriage into upper-class families rarely results in complete integration, since many factors (to be outlined below) raise a challenging barrier between the upper, upper middle, and middle classes.
Francis Fulford is a good example of a poverty stricken member of the upper class.

Likewise a highly successful builder or plumber can make a very good living (upto about £100000pa), they would still be considered working class, because of their vocation.
Ok then, we are comparing apples and oranges then and therefore kinda futile.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-11 06:09:04)

2006-11-11 06:09:54
KingCheese
Paul Scholes
+77|6842|England

lowing wrote:

Or, I will take any example you can give where a filthy rich person in the UK is labeled as lower class..
OK, Wayne Rooney - Manchester United forward.  This kid earns £70,000 at least per week - he practically pisses money.  You show me ANYONE in the world who says he is anything but working class and I will personally laugh in their face.
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
2006-11-11 06:14:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

KingCheese wrote:

lowing wrote:

Or, I will take any example you can give where a filthy rich person in the UK is labeled as lower class..
OK, Wayne Rooney - Manchester United forward.  This kid earns £70,000 at least per week - he practically pisses money.  You show me ANYONE in the world who says he is anything but working class and I will personally laugh in their face.
Already, figured out we are talkin' bout 2 different things
2006-11-11 06:16:07
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6788|The lunar module
Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

Ex-Prime Minister, one of the most powerful people in her day.

Still, lower middle class.
2006-11-11 06:18:02
KingCheese
Paul Scholes
+77|6842|England
No we aren't.  You asked for any example and you got one.  Here's another - Michael Carrol.  A dustbinman who won £9.7m on the national lottery.  He did not become upper class because he had a huge amount of money.  So you have two examples of filthy rich people who are not considered upper class.  Or still want more examples that YOU asked for?
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
2006-11-11 06:27:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

KingCheese wrote:

No we aren't.  You asked for any example and you got one.  Here's another - Michael Carrol.  A dustbinman who won £9.7m on the national lottery.  He did not become upper class because he had a huge amount of money.  So you have two examples of filthy rich people who are not considered upper class.  Or still want more examples that YOU asked for?
Apples and oranges. I was arguing my point based on the class system in the US where wealth and achievement determains your social status, not your mommy and daddy.
2006-11-11 06:30:40
KingCheese
Paul Scholes
+77|6842|England

lowing wrote:

Apples and oranges. I was arguing my point based on the class system in the US where wealth and achievement determains your social status, not your mommy and daddy.
Then surely your argument only applies in America, because here in the UK at least your class is not defined in that way.
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
2006-11-11 06:31:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

KingCheese wrote:

lowing wrote:

Apples and oranges. I was arguing my point based on the class system in the US where wealth and achievement determains your social status, not your mommy and daddy.
Then surely your argument only applies in America, because here in the UK at least your class is not defined in that way.
already bowed to that fact.
2006-11-11 06:44:36
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6886|space command ur anus
socialism ftw
2006-11-11 07:34:26
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7024|Cambridge (UK)
Thankyou, Bertster, apollo_fi and KingCheese, for providing some very fine examples whilst I was sleeping...

I would have also used Michael Carrol myself...

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-11 07:37:52)

2006-11-11 07:35:52
Storgie
how about this thread for whiners
+15|6833|federal way washington
just who desides that the world is living decently?
2006-11-11 13:06:39
power9787
Member
+10|6840
may be i am selfish  and maybe i am wrong about what i said
but think about it the world would probably be a better place if there was less people, not let them die but your control the birth and teach more education
2006-11-11 17:51:18
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6828|Portland, OR, USA

power9787 wrote:

may be i am selfish  and maybe i am wrong about what i said
but think about it the world would probably be a better place if there was less people, not let them die but your control the birth and teach more education
there you go, the post you had earlier was a little fucked up...
2006-11-11 23:49:10
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6751|Connecticut
No. Because I finally have a boat. The boat gets me away from the wife.
Therefore,
Boat+Me = Me-wife. .............Me - Wife = Happy.
Malloy must go

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard