ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We ain't lowering our expections.
Which of these did we lower?
youth
hard working
boldest,
most innovative
Ambitious
Risk tolerant
People

---

This is tangential to what I said. I believe we still have or can have all those characteristics within individuals. However we are destroying those characteristics by entitling society with things like living wages, guaranteed incomes, and lots of freebies. Those all work to lower the expectations of both achievement, hard work, and income mobility.

---

1. Freebies name a few and what makes them bad?
2. Those characteristics are not being destroyed but infused into our culture via immigration even illegal immigration.

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There is a clear, fundamental basis of fairness and equality that exists in the US. That cannot be argued. We are now trying to guarantee outcomes in a competitive economy which will never happen. We're also measuring poverty against a highly advanced income and standard of living scale. That literally means that our success has made our poor the wealthiest poor in the world by a factor of 10+ in comparison.

We have one of the most advanced legal systems that has both criminal and civil recourse for those subject to injustice, unfairness, fraud, or corruption. Not to mention a system of laws that favors fairness, equality, and justice.

Does that mean that everything is perfect? Of course not. Will the path to success be more difficult for some than others? Of course. But from a purely systemic perspective, the opportunity to better your lot in life is as available as ever, and merit/performance/work is rewarded.

I believe the visibility of our wealth and success as individuals and as a society has crept into an entitled expectation of certain comfort without sacrifice. Ironically, this approach/perspective has and will lead to greater disparity between haves and have nots, despite the "have nots" having quite a bit from a global comparative perspective.

---

"Entitled expectation". Do have any proof or is this simply a straw man opinion of people.

---

Sadly, yes.

---

Prove it.

---

"I tried hard, why didn't you give me an A?"
How old are you? If you are of a certain cohort, you will have seen it for yourself.

---

Sigh. I said none of those things. You're purposefully mischaracterizing my statements, and you're the only one who would fall for it.

I said someone smart enough and hard-working enough to do the work should have it pay off. If you're working your ass off full time, you should be able to pay your bills and move up the ladder.

We HAVE to reward hard work. It shouldn't take "luck" to get ahead. Hard work should suffice.

If we aren't intent on rewarding hard work, what are we even doing? We are training a society to give up, because working hard doesn't pay off. We're literally saying it's all a luck game. Either you have it or you don't. Work doesn't matter at all.

---

We do and it happens all the time in this country. Society isn't giving up, society is lowering the expectation ratio between effort and outcome of that effort. The minimum wage/living wage argument is a classic example of that.

---

The data doesn't bear that out.

Economic mobility is low and falling. People have two jobs and still can't afford to live.

Y'all don't see it. I guess because no one knows anyone who is poor? Idk. But it is fact. You can state it's possible all you want. Anything is possible. But it's not happening like it should.

---

The data does bear out tremendous social mobility. What the studies you fixate on are the ability to move from the lowest quintile of earnings to the highest. That's not the only way to measure social mobility. Also, most of the data is flawed. The CBO puts out the most comprehensive data on this, and it clearly shows income growth and economic mobility. You also seem to focus on the educational mobility in some of your data, which I view as independent of economic mobility.

And I'm around poverty on a somewhat regular basis. Real poverty. And because of that, I have a perspective on social and income opportunity that isn't skewed by the expectations of our high income standard of living, or the things we take for granted when trying to better our individual lives.

---

Please show your work.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-arent-stagnating-after-all/2018/11/18/055edb38-e9dc-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.6a3c80e53798

https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/october/missing-growth-from-creative-destruction/

https://medium.com/@russroberts/do-the-rich-capture-all-the-gains-from-economic-growth-c96d93101f9c

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/biggest-takeaway-from-pew-report-on-income-trends-making-america-more-like-france-wont-help-the-middle-class/

---

Impressive collection of sources.

Well done .

---

You didn't read a SINGLE one.

---

Not true

Opened and glanced through them all.

I don't pretend to comprehend all the arguments....but was very impressed that ATL Bear made the effort to compile them for you .

You should be flattered .

---

in less than 6 minutes?

That's some really quick glancing.

We disagree frequently but I trust your integrity.

Hope you will do the same .

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There is a clear, fundamental basis of fairness and equality that exists in the US. That cannot be argued. We are now trying to guarantee outcomes in a competitive economy which will never happen. We're also measuring poverty against a highly advanced income and standard of living scale. That literally means that our success has made our poor the wealthiest poor in the world by a factor of 10+ in comparison.

We have one of the most advanced legal systems that has both criminal and civil recourse for those subject to injustice, unfairness, fraud, or corruption. Not to mention a system of laws that favors fairness, equality, and justice.

Does that mean that everything is perfect? Of course not. Will the path to success be more difficult for some than others? Of course. But from a purely systemic perspective, the opportunity to better your lot in life is as available as ever, and merit/performance/work is rewarded.

I believe the visibility of our wealth and success as individuals and as a society has crept into an entitled expectation of certain comfort without sacrifice. Ironically, this approach/perspective has and will lead to greater disparity between haves and have nots, despite the "have nots" having quite a bit from a global comparative perspective.

---

"Entitled expectation". Do have any proof or is this simply a straw man opinion of people.

---

Sadly, yes.

---

Prove it.

---

"I tried hard, why didn't you give me an A?"
How old are you? If you are of a certain cohort, you will have seen it for yourself.

---

Sigh. I said none of those things. You're purposefully mischaracterizing my statements, and you're the only one who would fall for it.

I said someone smart enough and hard-working enough to do the work should have it pay off. If you're working your ass off full time, you should be able to pay your bills and move up the ladder.

We HAVE to reward hard work. It shouldn't take "luck" to get ahead. Hard work should suffice.

If we aren't intent on rewarding hard work, what are we even doing? We are training a society to give up, because working hard doesn't pay off. We're literally saying it's all a luck game. Either you have it or you don't. Work doesn't matter at all.

---

We do and it happens all the time in this country. Society isn't giving up, society is lowering the expectation ratio between effort and outcome of that effort. The minimum wage/living wage argument is a classic example of that.

---

The data doesn't bear that out.

Economic mobility is low and falling. People have two jobs and still can't afford to live.

Y'all don't see it. I guess because no one knows anyone who is poor? Idk. But it is fact. You can state it's possible all you want. Anything is possible. But it's not happening like it should.

---

The data does bear out tremendous social mobility. What the studies you fixate on are the ability to move from the lowest quintile of earnings to the highest. That's not the only way to measure social mobility. Also, most of the data is flawed. The CBO puts out the most comprehensive data on this, and it clearly shows income growth and economic mobility. You also seem to focus on the educational mobility in some of your data, which I view as independent of economic mobility.

And I'm around poverty on a somewhat regular basis. Real poverty. And because of that, I have a perspective on social and income opportunity that isn't skewed by the expectations of our high income standard of living, or the things we take for granted when trying to better our individual lives.

---

Please show your work.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-arent-stagnating-after-all/2018/11/18/055edb38-e9dc-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.6a3c80e53798

https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/october/missing-growth-from-creative-destruction/

https://medium.com/@russroberts/do-the-rich-capture-all-the-gains-from-economic-growth-c96d93101f9c

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/biggest-takeaway-from-pew-report-on-income-trends-making-america-more-like-france-wont-help-the-middle-class/

---

Impressive collection of sources.

Well done .

---

You didn't read a SINGLE one.

---

Not true

Opened and glanced through them all.

I don't pretend to comprehend all the arguments....but was very impressed that ATL Bear made the effort to compile them for you .

You should be flattered .

---

So it turns out that mere effort merits a reward after all?

Canada2017 said:

---

We disagree frequently but I trust your integrity.

Hope you will do the same .

---

I think you got caught up. 6 minutes. The proof is there.

Even if you looked THE SECOND he hit "post" you would have had less than 6 minutes to supposedly read 4 long sources. That's less than a minute a post.

I think you usually are pretty honest. But don't say I'm lying. Because we both know I'm not.

I'll drop this.

We climb up valid hierarchies as a consequence of the expression of confidence.

General cognitive ability and some prefrontal ability (intelligence/Trait conscientious)/

Smart hard working people are the ones most likely to succeed.

It's better to be born 3 standard deviations above the mean of intelligence than to be born 3 standard deviations above the mean in wealth all in relationship to where you will end up when you're 40 living in the west.

Doc Holliday said:

---

We climb up valid hierarchies as a consequence of the expression of confidence.

General cognitive ability and some prefrontal ability (intelligence/Trait conscientious)/

Smart hard working people are the ones most likely to succeed.

It's better to be born 3 standard deviations above the mean of intelligence than to be born 3 standard deviations above the mean in wealth all in relationship to where you will end up when you're 40 living in the west.

---

You must be one of those "socially aggrieved white men" - lol.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BBL: "6 minutes. The proof is there. "

Yeah, six minutes to click 4 links and review the main contentions.

Son, I do that at my job every single day. I can review a contract for export compliance in 30 seconds, I don't see that 90 seconds per link is not long enough to grab the gist.

Yeah, the proof is there. It proves you not only did not provide your own support after demanding it from ATL, you refuse to admit the validity of his evidence.

I'm not saying you are lying, exactly, but you don't have any credibility for your claim here.

---

You don't read but call it "glancing"?

I think this explains a lot of your takes, actually.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BBL: "6 minutes. The proof is there. "

Yeah, six minutes to click 4 links and review the main contentions.

Son, I do that at my job every single day. I can review a contract for export compliance in 30 seconds, I don't see that 90 seconds per link is not long enough to grab the gist.

Yeah, the proof is there. It proves you not only did not provide your own support after demanding it from ATL, you refuse to admit the validity of his evidence.

I'm not saying you are lying, exactly, but you don't have any credibility for your claim here.

---

You don't read but call it "glancing"?

I think this explains a lot of your takes, actually.

---

Wow, what a weak take, and sadly what I have come to expect from you, BBL.

"Glancing", in the context of this discussion, means reading the high points in the links. It's not difficult to find the thesis statement in an article; most of us learned that back in 7th grade or so.

And I read quickly. I can read a 100-page document word-for-word in 20 minutes with complete retention, but in the example of the contract I mentioned, I merely need to seek and confirm the relevant passages for my responsibility.

Seriously BBL, if you cannot do the same, you must be the fry cook at a Wendy's or some similarly unskilled position where quick review of paperwork is rare for you.

Florda_mike said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

OldBurlyBear86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Booray said:

---

william said:

---

>> In 2017, federal, state, and local governments spent $3,882 billion on social programs. This amounts to:

• 60% of all current government spending.
• $11,918 for every person living in the U.S.
• $30,755 for every household in the U.S.
• 19.9% of the U.S. gross domestic product.<<<<

---

How much of that is Medicare and Social Security Retirement payments?

I ask because those two programs tend to reinforce socioeconomic status.

---

Medicare and Medicaid alone are 26% of all the budget.

Social Security is 24%.

So 83% of all money spent on social programs, to answer your question, is what percentage is made up of Medicare/aid and Social Security.

So, basically, William is kind of full of *****

We spend roughly twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs.

---

So BBL, obviously math is important. We dont spend anywhere close to 2x. 2018 Military spending was appox $720 bln. Social spending was approx $2.8 trillion. So maybe you should crawl back underneath a rock. Pathetic.

---

You're confusing discretionary spending and mandatory spending.

---

According to the 2020 proposed budget:

Defense will be $989 billion, which includes $212.9 for Dept of State, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

Medicare wll be $679 billion
Medicaid will be $418 billion
Social Security will be $1,102 billion


How exactly do you calculate all that into "twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs"?

---

Because that money doesn't count. Why are you such an idiot?

---

Man. You're name-calling early. Tut-tut.

---

No, I'm not name calling at all. The sarcasm should have been clear given that he and I were making the same argument.

---

You clearly called me an idiot. But that's not name-calling?

Shame.

---

Quit whining. If I wanted to call you an idiot, I would.

More than half of federal spending is for social safety net programs. This is not really a debatable point. You are incorrect to argue otherwise.

---

I've known BBL to pick up his toys and leave when he's beat

Perhaps this will be another instance of such?

---

Looks like it. I do not believe he referenced his mistaken claim about spending on safety net programs vs defense again on this thread.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

OldBurlyBear86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Booray said:

---

william said:

---

>> In 2017, federal, state, and local governments spent $3,882 billion on social programs. This amounts to:

• 60% of all current government spending.
• $11,918 for every person living in the U.S.
• $30,755 for every household in the U.S.
• 19.9% of the U.S. gross domestic product.<<<<

---

How much of that is Medicare and Social Security Retirement payments?

I ask because those two programs tend to reinforce socioeconomic status.

---

Medicare and Medicaid alone are 26% of all the budget.

Social Security is 24%.

So 83% of all money spent on social programs, to answer your question, is what percentage is made up of Medicare/aid and Social Security.

So, basically, William is kind of full of *****

We spend roughly twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs.

---

So BBL, obviously math is important. We dont spend anywhere close to 2x. 2018 Military spending was appox $720 bln. Social spending was approx $2.8 trillion. So maybe you should crawl back underneath a rock. Pathetic.

---

You're confusing discretionary spending and mandatory spending.

---

According to the 2020 proposed budget:

Defense will be $989 billion, which includes $212.9 for Dept of State, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

Medicare wll be $679 billion
Medicaid will be $418 billion
Social Security will be $1,102 billion


How exactly do you calculate all that into "twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs"?

---

Because that money doesn't count. Why are you such an idiot?

---

Man. You're name-calling early. Tut-tut.

---

No, I'm not name calling at all. The sarcasm should have been clear given that he and I were making the same argument.

---

You clearly called me an idiot. But that's not name-calling?

Shame.

---

Quit whining. If I wanted to call you an idiot, I would.

More than half of federal spending is for social safety net programs. This is not really a debatable point. You are incorrect to argue otherwise.

---

I've known BBL to pick up his toys and leave when he's beat

Perhaps this will be another instance of such?

---

Looks like it. I do not believe he referenced his mistaken claim about spending on safety net programs vs defense again on this thread.

---

What? You're still here?

Listen, all you do is argue and refuse to show any outside sources to back up what you wish to be true.

It's boring and predictable. I have 9 different people pretending to know what they're talking about and throwing spears. I can't respond to it all.

Guess I'll have to learn to live with your disappointment. Die mad if you have to.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

OldBurlyBear86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Booray said:

---

william said:

---

,
>> In 2017, federal, state, and local governments spent $3,882 billion on social programs. This amounts to:

• 60% of all current government spending.
• $11,918 for every person living in the U.S.
• $30,755 for every household in the U.S.
• 19.9% of the U.S. gross domestic product.<<<<

---

How much of that is Medicare and Social Security Retirement payments?

I ask because those two programs tend to reinforce socioeconomic status.

---

Medicare and Medicaid alone are 26% of all the budget.

Social Security is 24%.

So 83% of all money spent on social programs, to answer your question, is what percentage is made up of Medicare/aid and Social Security.

So, basically, William is kind of full of *****

We spend roughly twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs.

---

So BBL, obviously math is important. We dont spend anywhere close to 2x. 2018 Military spending was appox $720 bln. Social spending was approx $2.8 trillion. So maybe you should crawl back underneath a rock. Pathetic.

---

You're confusing discretionary spending and mandatory spending.

---

According to the 2020 proposed budget:

Defense will be $989 billion, which includes $212.9 for Dept of State, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

Medicare wll be $679 billion
Medicaid will be $418 billion
Social Security will be $1,102 billion


How exactly do you calculate all that into "twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs"?

---

Because that money doesn't count. Why are you such an idiot?

---

Man. You're name-calling early. Tut-tut.

---

No, I'm not name calling at all. The sarcasm should have been clear given that he and I were making the same argument.

---

You clearly called me an idiot. But that's not name-calling?

Shame.

---

Quit whining. If I wanted to call you an idiot, I would.

More than half of federal spending is for social safety net programs. This is not really a debatable point. You are incorrect to argue otherwise.

---

I've known BBL to pick up his toys and leave when he's beat

Perhaps this will be another instance of such?

---

Looks like it. I do not believe he referenced his mistaken claim about spending on safety net programs vs defense again on this thread.

---

What? You're still here?

Listen, all you do is argue and refuse to show any outside sources to back up what you wish to be true.

It's boring and predictable. I have 9 different people pretending to know what they're talking about and throwing spears. I can't respond to it all.

Guess I'll have to learn to live with your disappointment. Die mad if you have to.

---

Quit whining. You are the one who provided incorrect percentages for government spending as it relates to social safety net spending vs. defense. When confronted, you moved on to something else.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

OldBurlyBear86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Booray said:

---

william said:

---

,
>> In 2017, federal, state, and local governments spent $3,882 billion on social programs. This amounts to:

• 60% of all current government spending.
• $11,918 for every person living in the U.S.
• $30,755 for every household in the U.S.
• 19.9% of the U.S. gross domestic product.<<<<

---

How much of that is Medicare and Social Security Retirement payments?

I ask because those two programs tend to reinforce socioeconomic status.

---

Medicare and Medicaid alone are 26% of all the budget.

Social Security is 24%.

So 83% of all money spent on social programs, to answer your question, is what percentage is made up of Medicare/aid and Social Security.

So, basically, William is kind of full of *****

We spend roughly twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs.

---

So BBL, obviously math is important. We dont spend anywhere close to 2x. 2018 Military spending was appox $720 bln. Social spending was approx $2.8 trillion. So maybe you should crawl back underneath a rock. Pathetic.

---

You're confusing discretionary spending and mandatory spending.

---

According to the 2020 proposed budget:

Defense will be $989 billion, which includes $212.9 for Dept of State, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

Medicare wll be $679 billion
Medicaid will be $418 billion
Social Security will be $1,102 billion


How exactly do you calculate all that into "twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs"?

---

Because that money doesn't count. Why are you such an idiot?

---

Man. You're name-calling early. Tut-tut.

---

No, I'm not name calling at all. The sarcasm should have been clear given that he and I were making the same argument.

---

You clearly called me an idiot. But that's not name-calling?

Shame.

---

Quit whining. If I wanted to call you an idiot, I would.

More than half of federal spending is for social safety net programs. This is not really a debatable point. You are incorrect to argue otherwise.

---

I've known BBL to pick up his toys and leave when he's beat

Perhaps this will be another instance of such?

---

Looks like it. I do not believe he referenced his mistaken claim about spending on safety net programs vs defense again on this thread.

---

What? You're still here?

Listen, all you do is argue and refuse to show any outside sources to back up what you wish to be true.

It's boring and predictable. I have 9 different people pretending to know what they're talking about and throwing spears. I can't respond to it all.

Guess I'll have to learn to live with your disappointment. Die mad if you have to.

---

Quit whining. You are the one who provided incorrect percentages for government spending as it relates to social safety net spending vs. defense. When confronted, you moved on to something else.

---

What are you even talking about? I sincerely have no idea.

Btw. Hav egos admitted you don't know what non discretionary spending vs discretionary spending is? Or are you still pretending none of us noticed?

Some of us have jobs. I can't keep up with your neediness. Deal with it.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Not sure why you are still arguing facts with BBL. He/She/It believes there are 17 different genders.

No reason to engage that kind of stupidity. Just mock him/her/it and move on. Can't save this one.

---

Gets it!

That's it!

Just a more outward and vindictive Cinque

GrowlTowel said:

---

Not sure why you are still arguing facts with BBL. He/She/It believes there are 17 different genders.

No reason to engage that kind of stupidity. Just mock him/her/it and move on. Can't save this one.

---

So he believes in 17 genders. His beliefs in human orientation does not refute his arguments. It's a red herring.

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Not sure why you are still arguing facts with BBL. He/She/It believes there are 17 different genders.

No reason to engage that kind of stupidity. Just mock him/her/it and move on. Can't save this one.

---

So he believes in 17 genders. His beliefs in human orientation does not refute his arguments. It's a red herring.

---

I don't believe in 17 genders. He's full of *****

Nice!! BBL with a comment. 17 gender science denier with an opinion.

Smoke on man!

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There is a clear, fundamental basis of fairness and equality that exists in the US. That cannot be argued. We are now trying to guarantee outcomes in a competitive economy which will never happen. We're also measuring poverty against a highly advanced income and standard of living scale. That literally means that our success has made our poor the wealthiest poor in the world by a factor of 10+ in comparison.

We have one of the most advanced legal systems that has both criminal and civil recourse for those subject to injustice, unfairness, fraud, or corruption. Not to mention a system of laws that favors fairness, equality, and justice.

Does that mean that everything is perfect? Of course not. Will the path to success be more difficult for some than others? Of course. But from a purely systemic perspective, the opportunity to better your lot in life is as available as ever, and merit/performance/work is rewarded.

I believe the visibility of our wealth and success as individuals and as a society has crept into an entitled expectation of certain comfort without sacrifice. Ironically, this approach/perspective has and will lead to greater disparity between haves and have nots, despite the "have nots" having quite a bit from a global comparative perspective.

---

"Entitled expectation". Do have any proof or is this simply a straw man opinion of people.

---

Sadly, yes.

---

Prove it.

---

"I tried hard, why didn't you give me an A?"
How old are you? If you are of a certain cohort, you will have seen it for yourself.

---

Sigh. I said none of those things. You're purposefully mischaracterizing my statements, and you're the only one who would fall for it.

I said someone smart enough and hard-working enough to do the work should have it pay off. If you're working your ass off full time, you should be able to pay your bills and move up the ladder.

We HAVE to reward hard work. It shouldn't take "luck" to get ahead. Hard work should suffice.

If we aren't intent on rewarding hard work, what are we even doing? We are training a society to give up, because working hard doesn't pay off. We're literally saying it's all a luck game. Either you have it or you don't. Work doesn't matter at all.

---

"We HAVE to reward hard work. It shouldn't take "luck" to get ahead. Hard work should suffice."

Respectfully, just can't agree with this assertion. It has to be hard work in the right occupation, at the right time, in the right place, etc. Market forces tend to make the decisions on a macro level as to how much our activities are "worth" as measured by compensation. Some activities simply receive less compensation due primarily to our old friends supply and demand.

I've spent many hours lately reading Jordan Peterson's Maps of Meaning as well as listening to many of his extended lectures available on YouTube. I commend his work to all. Re economic success, he attributes most of it to IQ and conscientiousness. A significant portion is also attributable to a number of other factors including chance. That said, he also states IQ is largely a factor of genetics, so isn't really "earned", but rather something I would call an unmerited gift.

---

Jordan Peterson? Jesus. Why am I not surprised?

I've read much of his crap. He's a blowhard and an *******. It's catnip for socially aggrieved white men who don't want to admit basic truths about the world.

Enjoy.

---

"I've read much of his crap. He's a blowhard and an assh***". Well, that was certainly well reasoned and argued. Nothing so convincing as a little ad hominem. Guess I was wrong to think you better than that. And speaking of "... men who don't want to admit basic truths about the world", look in your mirror.

---

Shouldn't you be off rioting with the Young Boys or something

GrowlTowel said:

---

Nice!! BBL with a comment. 17 gender science denier with an opinion.

Smoke on man!

---

Yawn.

She was only seventeen. . . Genders.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Not sure why you are still arguing facts with BBL. He/She/It believes there are 17 different genders.

No reason to engage that kind of stupidity. Just mock him/her/it and move on. Can't save this one.

---

So he believes in 17 genders. His beliefs in human orientation does not refute his arguments. It's a red herring.

---

I don't believe in 17 genders. He's full of *****

---

Ye s I know. My point was that his accusation was immaterial and misdirection.