Thursday, October 17, 2013

Quote of the Day


HispanicPundit said...

What about criticisms of the poor by those who was one and lived among em for most of their lives?

Examinator said...

I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous or are so partisan that your logic skills have temporarily evaded you.
The original comment is clearly couched in the collective and as such can be tested by a sound statistic sample. Yours is clearly couched in the singular (1st person, based on your previous comment... you?) specific and by definition the sample size, bias is too small to be statistically meaningful i.e. 1 drop of rain doesn't mean a cyclone.
Again 1st person experience can not apply to ALL or even a MAJORITY of poor.
(This is a common media or right wing tactic to shift the focus to emotional beat up rather than the objective proportional representation of reality). e.g.the "unworthy" poor soak up our social welfare budget
Fact: the fraudulent recipients the unemployed, single moms et al are a minority of the Social Welfare recipients.
The greater expenses are
1. the old age pensions by a large factor
2. The hidden costs of wars, reparations, GI care military injury pensions etc. etc.
3. The money the rich *illegally * hide from tax.
The two statement's contexts are poles apart.

If I read your missive as disingenuous it appears that the old saying
" Fortunate circumstances can remove some boys from their meanness (origins) but never the meanness in some men" is true.
In truth if it is you that you're talking about $s to peanuts you didn't do it by your self … you got breaks that others didn't...right place right time etc. No two people's circumstances are identical.

If ultra partisan one can rationally ask who has the power to alter the other's circumstances?
Then this quote applies
" No one hundred poor persons can save a single rich ones circumstances but a rich person can save a thousand poor."

Do you want to challenge that?

Jon said...

Such criticisms would have a better track record.

Examinator said...

Absolutely, and there is the reason politics is a problem.... sides rather than solutions.
As I said to HP his argument his pure bias technique to deflect what he sees as an attack on the ( socially dysfunctional) system he succeeded under i.e. it worked for him so more of the same with sort the other problems out.

It's a bit like gardening some fertiliser made some plants bloom ergo more fertiliser with make the rest grow too and if they don't the plants are duds.

The reality is that its way more complex than that. Different plants need DIFFERENT conditions to thrive.
More/less shade , humidity, PH, drainage and yes some plants need different minerals etc. The Australian native flora generally cant cope with too much phosphorous in the fertiliser but most veggies do.

as for feral poor, again nature show a good example. Take the Aussie eucalypt tree in Australia it is essential for the environment BUT in Florida where it has no natural controls it is well out of control and a pest over all.
A bit like some wall street bankers. No one in their right mind would want NO bankers the economy would crash. But they need real controls to benefit to make them more efficient and beneficial to society as a whole.
Floridian Aussie Eucalypts are ok but under tight control.
Likewise Too much control defeats the purpose for which they were introduced in the first place.
Like I said it isn't about sides i.e. uber control V no control it's about finding and MAINTAINING the optimum advantage for both rich and poor ( the two extremes)

Chad said...

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. - Bastiat

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism. - Bastiat

Jon said...

Chad, I'm not sure that has anything to do with the quote I posted.

Examinator said...

Chad, and others
Socialism is a complete ideological/governmental system.

Many systems SHARE features.
The US system has NO Relationship to socialism. Any more than voting is uniquely democratic. Even Socialism and communism have voting. True capitalism (i.e. Smith's version) had social welfare.

The fact is ZEALOTRY by definition exists by extremes and ABSOLUTES (Back or White). As a consequence zealots tend to think, speak in emotive words and concepts (albeit more often than not distorting abusing the meaning of words e.g. “legal Plunder” have contradictory/ mutually exclusive meanings). Their sole purpose is to invoke an emotional (irrational) response in the audience (irrational) as opposed to a rational one because rational requires reasoned analysis, the bane of the zealot. This is because it make evil concepts like Compromise and a proportional response not only possible but logically sound. And under those circumstances extreme and zealotry are shown for what they are.... reactionary and without substantive substance.
Extremist /zealots garner their power as a minority by the basis human instincts (fear, greed, self interest, ego, bestial or indulgent pleasures.....all of which we share with the 'lessor' animals ...As opposed to what distinguishes us from them... in simple terms that which makes us human.
Chad et al prove me wrong in reason and fact.

Brendon said...

Isn't it both parties? I'm thinking each person has their own misplaced criticisms towards others. It's just inside us. It's nature.

Australia Business News

Examinator said...

Tune pilots, Chad, Jonathan and others.
While it is true we as humans have and in varying degrees instincts we share (The dreadfully named human nature)… regardless of party. However Humans differ from animals in that we have a highly developed pre frontal cortex and they don't. Their's is far less developed. The pre frontal cortex and the frontal cortex is the reasoning … decision making part of the brain which is its primary purpose. This has developed to the degree that it has because of our evolutionary need to be better able to think etc and control our emotions for our species' survival i.e. A means to control our outward manifestation (emotions) of our instincts.
We have evolved to be a communal species hence the very purpose of societies. Like all thing evolutionary it isn't simple it's built on many factors many variables and so complex it's well beyond human sciences to provide definitive conclusions. All this marks humans as the ONLY species that CAN effect our own evolution.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your comment. The implication seems to be 'it's human nature' there's nothing to see or do so move on. It's in Human nature to kill or rape and a million other anti social actions by your potential reasoning should just claim it's human nature (sic) say...shit happens... etc shrug, say it's in some supernatural beings' hands. Say “what can I do?”, “it's someone else's problem” “not my problem”?
That is certainly what the Tea party practices …. to me it lacks/avoids personal responsibility to our species, culture, country etc.

I repeat that evolution has made us a social species because we NEED to be to survive as a species.
In is therefore important that we in our lack of concern for those we feel better than is against our evolutionary trend.
Evolution isn't a conscious driving force that has an end goal or plan it is pushed nudged by events be they huge, the meteor that wiped out 90 something % of species 65 million year ago...
Or the actions of 1 or 2 ordinary people by simply surviving. Think of the effect of one man's impact on society when Edward Jenner invented vaccination. Then consider the consequences, if his parent had never met (a bit SF-ish I know) but it does illustrate the point of ordinary people like you or me...well certainly me.
If we create the evolutionary forces for us to more follow our instincts(emotions, self interest ignoring others because they're not like us) evidence is clear we can and probably devolve into animals again or simply destroy our survival mechanism and simply die out. See the physical brain differences between Neanderthals and homo sapiens. Or compare the size and function of our appendix to say 1000 years ago.

Like it or not we all by our actions effect others, our individual behaviours help to define what happens to our species . Short answer it is Vitally matters how we as rich people behave to our 'lessors' (sic) as per the topic. As such 'it's human nature'.... is (should be)deeply disturbing regardless of which party or nation you support. All I ask of anyone is to think (we humans are good at that).

Examinator said...

My swan song? you tell me.