By “relevance,” do you mean a discussion in which you fail to acknowledge your error?
No. But to a majority so vastly great that I am perfectly comfortable making social policy consistent with it.
Heck, if we’re going to ride this lottery pony into the ground, I propose it be expanded to winners of genetic lotteries who then go on to be successful actors, athletes and models, often drawing salaries well in excess of the average.
And a few years after retiring and losing that income, these persons are often broke. Similarly, one could be lucky enough to have wealthy relatives, inherit a fortune and then bungle it away.
Along these lines, I recommend the Chris Rock comedy routine about the difference between rich and wealthy.
Consider it acknowledged, whatever it was.
Ah, so numbers do count. Okay, is the remaining minority larger or smaller than the number of cases of voter fraud? That is ultimately the objection, after all - legislation that creates a bigger problem than it solves, which is pretty much certain since the problem that it solves is virtually nonexistent.
I predict your counter will be that legislation is not meant to address voter fraud, it is meant to assuage public concerns about voter fraud (especially in ultra-close elections). This is an even more tenuous rationalization to interfere with the exercise of rights.
And a more sincere acknowledgement from you has never been heard.
You think so, Kreskin? You think that after my saying hundreds of times that public confidence was the issue, you are now willing to boldly predict that I might say that public confidence is the issue?
Well, by Gawd, somehow you did it. Yes, somehow you accurately predicted that response.
I don’t agree. You’re wrong.
But given your eager willingness to admit such things when they happen, my own prediction is that you’ll be equally reticent here.
Would you say the industrious, thrifty ascetics outnumber the slothful, prodigal hedonists?
No.
Although it’s worth pointing out that we might imagine an industrious hedonist – someone quite willing to work hard but unwilling to delay gratification – and a slothful ascetic, lazing about but carefully consuming only what he earns and saving as necessary.
But the number of people willing to place themselves in all categories that help ensure success is small.
Those are not synonyms. :rolleyes:
Your link goes to a thread. What, specifically, in that thread do you believe proves that working-class people cannot accomplish this?
They can. They just have to be willing to not buy things they cannot afford.
The problem is that they want to have big screen TVs and Disney vacations and run the air conditioner every time it’s hot.
They are free to make whatever choices they wish. But the new living room set is money that could earn interest for them instead of interest for the store, if they kept the old furniture.
Sorry to just jump in, but I’ve been following this thread since its start.
Is your definition of “working class” someone who graduates high school without any plans for college, and no discernable job skills?
I cheerfully acknowledge that on this matter, my sincerity is proportional to my concern.
And seeing you reconfirm your error assures me that some things at least in this world are consistent, except when you’re not.
Also, numbers apparently don’t count when you don’t want to count them, so when you say things like “to a majority so vastly great that I am perfectly comfortable making social policy consistent with it”, you are clearly lying. You have no concern what the ratio is - it plays no part in the decision you’ve made of what side to support.
Got another Ramon Cue cite in mind? Cool. Share with the group.
Anyway, compared to you being massively wrong on things that matter (i.e. elections going to the party not selected by the voters), I’ll cheerfully acknowledge being wrong on things that are trivial. I didn’t read the article. I have no intention of reading the article. You said liberals maintain that success is determined solely by luck, specifically:
Followed up by some comments on the article, which I opened, glanced at, pulled two paragraphs that had words relating to chance, and that was the sum total of my involvement or interest. Your remark was, after all, an obvious off-the-cuff bit of hyperbole, not to be taken literally (you’re only pedantically literal when it suits you and/or allows you to stall for time, I’ve noticed) and this is a vague compliment because if you actually believed that liberals believed that success was only a matter of luck, then you’d be stupid. Colossally stupid. Adaher-and-Clothahump-lovechild stupid.
You’re welcome.
Your sincerity is variable. Check.
“The liberal.” Not all of them.
You, though. Called on it, you exercise your legendary variable sincerity to claim you recognize things that aren’t luck, while at the same time trying to redefine heritage, genetics, life circumstance, will, drive, and ambition as luck.
That’s not what you really meant to do, right? Sincerely?
Or just another item that doesn’t concern you, and is therefore subject to an insincere explanation?
Everyone’s sincerity is variable, Professor Obvious. I might recognize a possible exception of someone with an Asperger’s-like disorder that compelled literal truthfulness all the time, but I don’t see that applying to anyone here.
Don’t cherry-pick your own quotes. What you said was:
Are you claiming this is a cry used by some liberals, now? Or was it intended as a generalized slam against all liberals, which you are now backpedaling?
You could only support this by cherry-picking my quotes - specifically about will, drive, and ambition - and you’d have to pick pretty hard, using lots of ellipses and anagrams, I expect. It might be amusing to see you try, otherwise I’ll just be content to say you’re lying or, if I felt generous, are making an honest mistake and conflating my posts with someone else’s, a mistake I’ve made on occasion and no doubt will again in future.
Oh, so you weren’t really “calling” me on something. Okay…
I think you’re making it up. I’m prepared to accept the possibility that my phrasing may have been ambiguous and if shown quotes where this would be the case, I’d be happy to clarify. In anticipation of this, I’m prepared to say that heritage is certainly due to luck (i.e. you have no input into what family you’re born into), as is genetics (you have no input into which genes came together during your conception), and “life circumstance” needs some definition before I venture a comment.
I don’t recall offhand specifically addressing will, drive, or ambition, or at least not to any detail. I may be mistaken, of course.
So when you said that the study’s use of chance was synonymous with “luck,” Professor Sincere, you were…?
“The liberal” is singular. You. You and your dopey ideas.
There are plenty of honorable liberals in the world, and here. MaxTheVool and I have had reasonably civilized conversations on this and many other subjects. He’s liberal, but not infects with the variable honesty that plagues you.
It occurs to me that I’m wandering a bit in my previous above post.
I figure the most likely explanations for Bricker’s claims are, in order of probability:
- He has my comments confused with someone else’s.
- He’s lying or at least broadly exaggerating (possibly with deliberate disingenuity) what I have said.
- He’s misinterpreted remarks of mine that were ambiguous.
- I said what he says I said, but I’ve forgotten about it or - if one were inclined to be ungenerous to me - I’m lying about it.
On reflection, I think I conflated this claim with another poster. I apologize for my mistake on the will/drive/ambition front.
I was wrong about that accusation.
Yes. (1).
Except as to the study’s use of “chance,” which you said was synonymous with “luck.” That was all you.
Mostly kidding, taking a cheap shot, entirely convinced that your implication that one’s fate was not influenced by luck was so obviously stupid that it didn’t really call for a thoughtful rebuttal.
Well, I wasn’t expecting that answer, considering that your post (#8655) was in response to Lobohan and doesn’t otherwise quote or even reference me, so I don’t know how or when I got to be the “you” in this situation.
Well, I’ve already concluded and bluntly stated that you operate with a total lack of integrity, so I’ve certainly no grounds to claim immunity from a counter-claim, though you’re picking a trivial basis to accuse me, while I’m on more solid ground when accusing you. I have no specific opinion on MaxTheVool’s writing style, but if this topic was in GD (wasn’t it, at some point?), I’d be as reasonably civilized as anyone.
And I’ll stack my honesty against yours any day of the week.
Because I had confused you with Lobohan.
On days where you were concerned about it? With the other days free for variable sincerity?
If those days happen to be parts of weeks, they count.
Under some proposed alternative calendar designs, there are leap days that are not technically parts of weeks, i.e. the five or six leftovers under a 360-day scheme. If those systems get implemented in Canada, I reserve them for full-on insincerity - no truths, no regrets.