The rich are getting richer

Post Reply New Topic

That's soo simplistic. True entrepreneurs who invent and create things all on their own are a very small minority of the "wealthy" as a whole. You do not necessarily have to understand the nuts and bolts of a technology to become successful selling it. For every Bill Gates or Steve Jobs there are 100 other scientists and engineers who made groundbreaking discoveries in basic research decades or even centuries earlier. Where would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs be without Michael Faraday or John von Neumann. Or what about all these (http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm) people? Are they all filthy rich...

I don't know if people with your attitude are trolls or what. The world would probably be a better place if less people had the warped perspective you have. I mean, you're typing on a f*****g computer so go count your damn blessings that you weren't born in a shanty trash heap in India. No, not everyone born in this world has the same f*****g "options". Most people try their best to deal with the hand they're dealt. One does not have to be "jealous" to disagree with what they perceive as an unjust world. Most people do not look to be a "burden" on others. Most are just trying to get by as best they can. Don't be looking down on people and calling them "parasites" unless you would like to be referred as one.

It's more a matter of people on WP being horrid at realizing "hmm, every post so far was in context X, so assuming that the opinion is the same in context Z which is a completely different context would be stupid of me". It's kind of how in the feminism threads when discussing affirmative action in western world countries, someone needs to bring up women being tortured in sub-Saharan Africa or The Middle East.

It's not about having the same options, but having options. Even someone born in a thrash heap in India or a Favela in Brasil has options, not the same options as someone born into a family fortune of a few hundred million but they do have options.

The definition of parasite is "Parasitism is a type of non mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host." so someone that gains at the expense of others without offering anything in return could be accurately described as a parasite. It's a matter of being pragmatic about it as opposed to overly concerned with peoples feelings.

If the rich start getting poor this economy is heading for a train-wreck if it is not already in one.

ruveyn

The same description can be used for the super wealthy that profit at the expense of the general population, not all of them are profitting at expense of others but many of them are.......maybe you have no understanding of what corporate america means. Also I would like to know how those of us in the lower economic class are 'parasites' who are we really hurting, and I know you think all poor people are stupid and lazy, but that's not actually accurate as many have jobs for one so that argument wont work.

If you want to go by that broad definition then everyone is a parasite. Every dependent child is a parasite upon their parents. There is no man or women on this earth who has never relied on someone else without giving the exact same in return. But if you're going to be scientific about it, parasites are biological organisms that have specifically evolved to rely on a host for nourishment. Human beings are social creatures that tend to work together, even if that sometimes means taking care of the young/old/weak/sick/disabled etc... who may not have the capacity to contribute as much as more able members of society. That does not mean those people are biological "parasites".

Applying the word "parasite" to human beings appears to be nothing more than a cruel insult since it isn't a scientifically accurate description of any human being. It's a hateful word used to dehumanize groups of people, nothing more. Lets see... it was a word commonly used by European anti-semites, leading up to the Holocaust. It was used in Stalinist Russia to describe certain "enemies" who were then killed by the millions. It was used by Hutu militants in Rawanda to describe Tutsis before slaughtering close to a million of them. Sounds more like hate speech to me. It shouldn't be used to describe any class of human beings, rich or poor.

Last edited by marshall on 18 Apr 2012, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is tiresome that people insist on the utter delusion that everything they got they did it out of themselves and only themselves and never got any kind of help nor were lucky.

It is a terrible delusion, completely not based on logic nor is there any empirical example of anyone actually getting close to such thing.

Truth is if you are 0 years old or older, you have already been helped a lot.

It is particularly a disgrace when somebody who made their profits thanks to modern technology to say such thing. That computer you use in your work is the product of (and I mean it) at least hundreds of work from people in many different areas.

Uhh no actually that computer is the product of one person's work- Jesus

Why is there such an urge to hate the Better People in our society?

Most of the Proles are dull and stupid.

ruveyn

wealthy does not = better person, I think it's that mentality that pisses people off...thinking ones economic status determines if they are a better or worse person and all just seems pretty stupid if you ask me.

I'd agree the ones that vote for Republicans are pretty stupid.

The one's that vote for Democrats because they think they are better than the Repub. are just as bad.

My sister tells me that if I am so smart why don't I have a million dollars?

I no longer believe the mantra that both parties are "equally bad". The Repubs are definitely pushing a harder and harder ideological line and moving the center farther and farther right. It's so pathetic that the "center" in congress is now way to the right of true public opinion. I blame apathetic progressives for this. Conservatives have the edge because they have much more partisan loyalty and will vote for Mittens even if they would prefer someone even farther right, such is their hatred of Obama. Progressives need to adapt a more pragmatic attitude or things will get much much worse.

Of course the democrats want to be seen as better than the republicans......I still think both the democrats and republicans are pretty much just as bad.

Turns out that the simple but unspoken fact of that matter is that ya can't get rich by working for somebody else! You have to own PROPERTY and/or CAPITAL. If you are born and raised without either one and can't manage to discover an opportunity to get your hands on at least 1 of those 2 things, you'll never become wealthy. I'm tired of conservatives trying desperately to argue that the Land of Opportunity myth is anything more than pipe dream for most people. Those who have wealth obviously want to keep what they have, and in order to do that they must actively work to prevent others from getting wealthy. That's how how capitalism works. After all, it is not enough to succeed, others must fail.