Well, they do say opposites attract… but sometimes they’re wrong.
How does this differ from an assertion that hard work is a guarantee of success?
No, from this seat here, it seems pretty clear that the Santa/Tooth Fairy/Ward Cleaver taunt was about the unrealistic nature of such a guarantee.
If you truly meant to be clear that you understand hard work is not a guarantee of success, you were really inept about it.
And another one bites the dust.
So yet another gangsta rapper (on the Konvict label no less) gets gunned down and I’m a moron for saying gangsta rap glamorizes thug life, is a menace, and causes kids to kill one another?
Somehow I don’t think I’m the moron in this discussion.
Well, for one, since Mr. “Dolla” had been shot at least once before he became a rapper, you might want to find a better example.
Second, let’s think about this for a second. Were poor black kids shooting each other before gangsta rap came along?
There is a difference in my mind between getting ahead and success. To get ahead - in other words, to improve your lot in life - hard work alone is often sufficient. To be successful - what most people regard as being rich - often requires a combination of hard work, self-discipline, the ability to recognize opportunity and assess risk, and the willingness to invest time and capital and risk failure.
Either way, the amount of money posessed by the upper one percent of the population or whatever has nothing to do with an individual’s pay or his ability to achieve success him/herself. If I’m working for minimum wage at a bookstore, it’s because I can be replaced for the same amount of money. If I’m head of accounting for Barnes & Noble, I have acquired education and skills that make my services more valuable and harder to replace…thus I get paid much, much more.
And in either event, the fact that Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg or Cornielius Gotrocks has billions and billions of dollars has no impact whatsoever on the value of the work I do or the amount I get paid for doing it. If they lose money, my income doesn’t rise accordingly; and if they get richer, my income doesn’t decrease accordingly.
In short, the one has nothing to do with the other.
And that was the main point to begin with.
“Often” is not “invariably”. Hence, hard work is not necessarily sufficient. Which was the point, being the retard upon which you are currently ahoist.
What moron ever does?
Doesn’t matter! Lots of kids have been killed in gang and drug-related shootings that are the outgrowth of the glamorization of thug life that gangsta rap promulgates, and I’d wager that Dolla was fairly well into thug life before he became a rapper.
:smack: Oh, hell! You’re right! Why did I never think of it that way before?
Of course it’s all right to glamorize and promote thug and gang life that results in thousands of black kids dying because, hey, back when they weren’t being promoted, dozens of black kids were getting shot.
How could I have been so blind?
:rolleyes:
Clearly if you do something that causes people to be killed at a greater rate than before, that is a bad thing to do! Gangsta rap glamorizes and promotes gang and thug life, and that results in more crime and death than would be occuring if that way of life was being scorned and repressed by society rather than cheered and accepted.
And I’m sure you’ve made an in-depth study of the socioeconomic factors that contribute to the homicide rate among young urban African-Americans and that you’re not pulling these assertions out of your ass at all, right? :rolleyes:
Tell me something: did the widespread popularity of gangster films in the 1930s result in more crime and death by promoting organized crime?
And are you going to respond to this…
…or can I go ahead and declare victory on that one?
So, would you say that anything that meets these criteria is “bad” then? Or just some things?
No, the point was that people in this thread were whinging about how evil Capitalist millionaires and billionaires were somehow keeping them from earning their proper living wage by sucking up all the available money.
My participation in this thread has been to illustrate that that is not so.
Thus, robbed of that specious argument which seeks to promote government redistribution of wealth - which is what you favor, regardless of the facts - you now attempt to shift the focus and make it about whether or not every word I say applies to every person in every situation ever known to man.
Really not very sporting of you, old chap, I must say. (But then, you admittedly come from pecker-woods, don’t you.) 
You can declare victory all you want. It doesn’t mean you’ve acheived it.
People who inherit their wealth obviously haven’t earned it. Neither have lottery winners or people who find suitcases loaded with money at the side of the road. That doesn’t mean the government has a right to it.
I’m sure it’s hard for commie-wannabes such as yourself to understand, but most people feel that once they’ve earned their money it becomes their property and they are free to do with it as they wish. They can burn it up, throw it out the window, give it all to charity, etc. If they decide to give it to their children they are perfectly within their rights to do so, and it harms no one if they do. I will not earn one dollar less in my lifetime if Bill Gates, or a hundred Bill Gates, leave all their money to their kids.
An individual’s money is not the government’s property, and it is not the government’s place to say how people dispose of the money they have lawfully earned in their lifetime. The right of individuals to own and hold property is one of the key rights established in the Constitution.
Politicians (mostly leftie politicians), hungry as always for other peoples’ money to buy votes with, have succeeded in passing laws that errode those rights and which have resulted in huge hits on peoples’ inheritances, but that doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean that more of the same is even better.
Again, the only people who view inherited money as wrong are confiscatory believers in government redistribution of wealth.
Apparently, there are infinite opportunities for success for people who want to work hard, and infinite excuses for any counter-examples.
It’s a length of barbed wire! DUCK!
So it would be more accurate to describe your philosophy as, “to each according to his ability unless Daddy was loaded,” right?
Yes. In YOUR mind. And in some other people’s minds the terms are functionally identical. And in yet OTHER people’s minds success consists of not falling behind (i.e., just keeping up is considered success), and getting ahead refers to getting rich.
So, in regards to you trying to make it clear that you understand that hard work is not a guarantee of success, see my comment above.
Fact is, it’s not even a guarantee of what you term “getting ahead”. As your own words suggest you are aware.
Guarantee = always sufficient.
Not-quite-guarantee = often sufficient.
Anybody else reminded of that *Monty Python *where Oscar Wilde tries to talk his way out of saying that the Prince of Wales is like a stream of bat’s piss?
Personally, I’m wondering why the glamorization of thugs by musical ne’er-do-wells like Bobby Darin* didn’t cause a crime wave back in the glorious 50s that SA is so lost in rapture about.
(*In “Mack the Knife” – which was a #1 hit, yet seems to have not been accompanied by a sudden rash of stabbings)
Yup.
Thanks to Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Edward G Robinson, Tony Soprano, Gross Pointe Blank, and the Godfather, we all decided that our calling in life was to become professional hit men and bootleggers. :smack:
If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the past eight years…
But the children in that case have not earned the money, lawfully or otherwise. So why should they be free to do with it as they wish? Why should they be entitled to large amounts of unearned wealth?
I fail to see why a lazy layabout who expects Daddy’s money to pay for everything without lifting a finger for him/herself is any more morally entitled to it than a lazy layabout who expects the government to pay for everything without lifting a finger for him/herself. Maybe we should have an equivalent of “workfare” programs for the unproductive heirs of unearned wealth: you get to inherit money you didn’t earn, just like welfare recipients get government assistance that they didn’t earn, but only if you can show that you’re gainfully employed or otherwise a productive member of society taking some responsibility for your own support.