231–240 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you’re saying the rich have much less to gain through hard work and shouldn’t be incentivized?
Isn't that a given? The idle rich as a class has been a thing for a long time. Rich people do not generally work shitty dead end jobs, as a general rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’s something that puts a wrench in your idea: disabled people exist and are often denied immigration explicitly because of their disabled status. Statistically everyone is simply not yet disabled. Some people are just disabled earlier in life than others, permanently affecting their capacity for work, immigration, or other self improvement without external assistance (such as medical intervention, without which t…
Usually I preface comments of mine on this topic with "legally consenting adults with a reasonably sound mind and body."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe of interest to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSUvdU_Sbk
Apologies, I appreciate your effort but I honestly do not care whatsoever about cryptocurrency and feel like I am subjected to a neverending ad champaign. I evaluated it very early on (a couple of months into bc launch), decided it did not sufficiently cover my 3 main purposes of a currency, and promptly removed all software (and any future regret, unless bc somehow gets to be worth $100mil/satoshi...) from my system…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luck is the particular details. Not luck is the broad arc of one's career. For example, you're not going to meet a parter sitting in your basement. You meet one by going out and interacting with people. The particular partner you wind up with is luck, but finding someone compatible is not. I.e. the trick is to enable luck to find you . At some point, it becomes inevitable. For another example, stock investing. You ca…
I think a lot of people underestimate the persistence factor. A lot of getting lucky is about getting through the times when you are unlucky. If you can weather the storm, the sun comes out eventually. People like stories of people who bet it all on black and win, though, so they think that's the model for success. Really, the way to win is just to not lose.
Treating each and every case as fully comparable based on just their outcome merely hurts those that have already been hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually I preface comments of mine on this topic with "legally consenting adults with a reasonably sound mind and body."
Then you’re already applying luck there.
Those are not even remotely comparable conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those are the least bit relevant at the individual level. You sound like you subscribe to the "great man" theory of history. That theory is, quite frankly, bunk. No man is an island, and one, single person can't accomplish anything meaningful without the support of others. You allude to this in another comment, but I do know who you are, and, no, you didn't build that. Everything you accomplished was built on…
> Everything you accomplished was built on the backs of what people who came before you did, and you got lucky to end up in such a privileged position to be able to even have some of the opportunities you had, much less take advantage of them. Yeah, if I'd just watched TV the whole time, the outcome would have been the same. Right? > single person can't accomplish anything meaningful without the support of others. Gr…
Haber and Borlaug? Yeah, I know they bear a lot of responsibility for overconsumption in the world today.
Likewise for every single person you named. You couldn’t have done what you did had you been born a serf in 1375, and had you been so born, I would wager nobody would know your name even 10 years after you died.
No, sir, you didn’t build that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually I preface comments of mine on this topic with "legally consenting adults with a reasonably sound mind and body."
Then you’re already applying luck there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you’re already applying luck there.
Isn't this kind of a motte and Bailey fallacy, though? You mention disabled people (a population of millions in the world) as your example of luck, but use it to justify the idea that you have to be born in a stable country with resources (arguably disadvantaging almost all of the world's population except for a billion or so). Those are not even remotely comparable conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everything you accomplished was built on the backs of what people who came before you did, and you got lucky to end up in such a privileged position to be able to even have some of the opportunities you had, much less take advantage of them. Yeah, if I'd just watched TV the whole time, the outcome would have been the same. Right? > single person can't accomplish anything meaningful without the support of others. Gr…
Do you think Steve Jobs could have done any of the things he did 30 years prior? Haber and Borlaug? Yeah, I know they bear a lot of responsibility for overconsumption in the world today. Likewise for every single person you named. You couldn’t have done what you did had you been born a serf in 1375, and had you been so born, I would wager nobody would know your name even 10 years after you died. No, sir, you didn’t b…
I see you admit Jobs did it. Oops!
> what you did
You admit what I did, too. Oops!
> you didn’t
Too late!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this kind of a motte and Bailey fallacy, though? You mention disabled people (a population of millions in the world) as your example of luck, but use it to justify the idea that you have to be born in a stable country with resources (arguably disadvantaging almost all of the world's population except for a billion or so). Those are not even remotely comparable conditions.
No, they’re saying that someone who’s disabled isn’t allowed to even try and overcome the condition of being born in the “wrong” country.