90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You think they deserve it because the rich are AUTOMATICALLY smarter and better than the poor.

I have said we have to do something to make it so merit actually goes to people who deserve it.

---

The rich are not AUTOMATICALLY smarter than the poor, just probably. Being rich doesn't make them better, whatever better means.

What is it we have to do so merit actually goes to the people who deserve it? I assume you and your group will decide who deserves it.

---

No not true at all. No one gets to decide. BBL is saying remove the barriers that meritocracy sets up.
Barriers are the issue.

---

1) No...BBL is not arguing that meritocracy sets up barriers. He is possibly (I don't like to speak for other posters) arguing to remove barriers to help create a society closer to a meritocracy as he defines it. I haven't seen his definition yet.

2) What barriers and how do you remove them?

---

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just remove barriers. We had a whole back-and-forth. Don't knock down the walls, just build a ramp.

---

Again, what barriers? How do you remove them?

Who gets access to the ramp? Who determines who gets access to the ramp? What makes up this ramp? Where is this ramp leading (what is the desired outcome)?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You think they deserve it because the rich are AUTOMATICALLY smarter and better than the poor.

I have said we have to do something to make it so merit actually goes to people who deserve it.

---

The rich are not AUTOMATICALLY smarter than the poor, just probably. Being rich doesn't make them better, whatever better means.

What is it we have to do so merit actually goes to the people who deserve it? I assume you and your group will decide who deserves it.

---

No not true at all. No one gets to decide. BBL is saying remove the barriers that meritocracy sets up.
Barriers are the issue.

---

1) No...BBL is not arguing that meritocracy sets up barriers. He is possibly (I don't like to speak for other posters) arguing to remove barriers to help create a society closer to a meritocracy as he defines it. I haven't seen his definition yet.

2) What barriers and how do you remove them?

---

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just remove barriers. We had a whole back-and-forth. Don't knock down the walls, just build a ramp.

---

Again, what barriers? How do you remove them?

Who gets access to the ramp? Who determines who gets access to the ramp? What makes up this ramp? Where is this ramp leading (what is the desired outcome)?

---

Can we stop with the bad-faith questions?

You keep going back to this. If there isn't a clear-cut internet message-board-ready post-solution for the problem, then the problem doesn't exist?

Is that your point?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You think they deserve it because the rich are AUTOMATICALLY smarter and better than the poor.

I have said we have to do something to make it so merit actually goes to people who deserve it.

---

The rich are not AUTOMATICALLY smarter than the poor, just probably. Being rich doesn't make them better, whatever better means.

What is it we have to do so merit actually goes to the people who deserve it? I assume you and your group will decide who deserves it.

---

No not true at all. No one gets to decide. BBL is saying remove the barriers that meritocracy sets up.
Barriers are the issue.

---

1) No...BBL is not arguing that meritocracy sets up barriers. He is possibly (I don't like to speak for other posters) arguing to remove barriers to help create a society closer to a meritocracy as he defines it. I haven't seen his definition yet.

2) What barriers and how do you remove them?

---

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just remove barriers. We had a whole back-and-forth. Don't knock down the walls, just build a ramp.

---

Again, what barriers? How do you remove them?

Who gets access to the ramp? Who determines who gets access to the ramp? What makes up this ramp? Where is this ramp leading (what is the desired outcome)?

---

Can we stop with the bad-faith questions?

You keep going back to this. If there isn't a clear-cut internet message-board-ready post-solution for the problem, then the problem doesn't exist?

Is that your point?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Exactly.

This is nothing more than an attempt to justify the idea that anyone who is successful, has done so through illegitimate means. That way, fewer people will object when they push for government enforced redistribution of wealth.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You think they deserve it because the rich are AUTOMATICALLY smarter and better than the poor.

I have said we have to do something to make it so merit actually goes to people who deserve it.

---

The rich are not AUTOMATICALLY smarter than the poor, just probably. Being rich doesn't make them better, whatever better means.

What is it we have to do so merit actually goes to the people who deserve it? I assume you and your group will decide who deserves it.

---

No not true at all. No one gets to decide. BBL is saying remove the barriers that meritocracy sets up.
Barriers are the issue.

---

1) No...BBL is not arguing that meritocracy sets up barriers. He is possibly (I don't like to speak for other posters) arguing to remove barriers to help create a society closer to a meritocracy as he defines it. I haven't seen his definition yet.

2) What barriers and how do you remove them?

---

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just remove barriers. We had a whole back-and-forth. Don't knock down the walls, just build a ramp.

---

Again, what barriers? How do you remove them?

Who gets access to the ramp? Who determines who gets access to the ramp? What makes up this ramp? Where is this ramp leading (what is the desired outcome)?

---

Can we stop with the bad-faith questions?

You keep going back to this. If there isn't a clear-cut internet message-board-ready post-solution for the problem, then the problem doesn't exist?

Is that your point?

---

As others have observed, the point is demonstrating your purpose. If you have a solution in mind, even a broad concept, let's hear it. If you have no solution at all in mind, then your complaint is really nothing more than an emotional rant.

That's OK to a point, by the way. You may have noted that some conservatives post emotional rants just like liberals do. As long as the rant is more or less on topic and avoids personal attacks, it's fine. And if someone gets ridiculous, just ignore them. But remember as well, when someone does nothing but post insults and emotional rant, they will be ignored, either by skipping the post or blocking the ranter entirely, which will lessen the value of the forum to that person.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You think they deserve it because the rich are AUTOMATICALLY smarter and better than the poor.

I have said we have to do something to make it so merit actually goes to people who deserve it.

---

The rich are not AUTOMATICALLY smarter than the poor, just probably. Being rich doesn't make them better, whatever better means.

What is it we have to do so merit actually goes to the people who deserve it? I assume you and your group will decide who deserves it.

---

No not true at all. No one gets to decide. BBL is saying remove the barriers that meritocracy sets up.
Barriers are the issue.

---

1) No...BBL is not arguing that meritocracy sets up barriers. He is possibly (I don't like to speak for other posters) arguing to remove barriers to help create a society closer to a meritocracy as he defines it. I haven't seen his definition yet.

2) What barriers and how do you remove them?

---

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just remove barriers. We had a whole back-and-forth. Don't knock down the walls, just build a ramp.

---

Again, what barriers? How do you remove them?

Who gets access to the ramp? Who determines who gets access to the ramp? What makes up this ramp? Where is this ramp leading (what is the desired outcome)?

---

Can we stop with the bad-faith questions?

You keep going back to this. If there isn't a clear-cut internet message-board-ready post-solution for the problem, then the problem doesn't exist?

Is that your point?

---

As others have observed, the point is demonstrating your purpose. If you have a solution in mind, even a broad concept, let's hear it. If you have no solution at all in mind, then your complaint is really nothing more than an emotional rant.

That's OK to a point, by the way. You may have noted that some conservatives post emotional rants just like liberals do. As long as the rant is more or less on topic and avoids personal attacks, it's fine. And if someone gets ridiculous, just ignore them. But remember as well, when someone does nothing but post insults and emotional rant, they will be ignored, either by skipping the post or blocking the ranter entirely, which will lessen the value of the forum to that person.

---

Admitting reality is the purpose. Until we can agree on the reality of the situation, finding solutions is just an excuse for detractors to dismiss the facts on the ground.

I show you real solutions, you dismiss them (in bad faith) as socialist or as racist (if you don't know what racism means) or whatever.

It's a lame trap. I'll be serious about sharing solutions when YOU and your I'll show you're serious about discussing them.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You think they deserve it because the rich are AUTOMATICALLY smarter and better than the poor.

I have said we have to do something to make it so merit actually goes to people who deserve it.

---

The rich are not AUTOMATICALLY smarter than the poor, just probably. Being rich doesn't make them better, whatever better means.

What is it we have to do so merit actually goes to the people who deserve it? I assume you and your group will decide who deserves it.

---

No not true at all. No one gets to decide. BBL is saying remove the barriers that meritocracy sets up.
Barriers are the issue.

---

1) No...BBL is not arguing that meritocracy sets up barriers. He is possibly (I don't like to speak for other posters) arguing to remove barriers to help create a society closer to a meritocracy as he defines it. I haven't seen his definition yet.

2) What barriers and how do you remove them?

---

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just remove barriers. We had a whole back-and-forth. Don't knock down the walls, just build a ramp.

---

Again, what barriers? How do you remove them?

Who gets access to the ramp? Who determines who gets access to the ramp? What makes up this ramp? Where is this ramp leading (what is the desired outcome)?

---

Can we stop with the bad-faith questions?

You keep going back to this. If there isn't a clear-cut internet message-board-ready post-solution for the problem, then the problem doesn't exist?

Is that your point?

---

As others have observed, the point is demonstrating your purpose. If you have a solution in mind, even a broad concept, let's hear it. If you have no solution at all in mind, then your complaint is really nothing more than an emotional rant.

That's OK to a point, by the way. You may have noted that some conservatives post emotional rants just like liberals do. As long as the rant is more or less on topic and avoids personal attacks, it's fine. And if someone gets ridiculous, just ignore them. But remember as well, when someone does nothing but post insults and emotional rant, they will be ignored, either by skipping the post or blocking the ranter entirely, which will lessen the value of the forum to that person.

---

Admitting reality is the purpose. Until we can agree on the reality of the situation, finding solutions is just an excuse for detractors to dismiss the facts on the ground.

I show you real solutions, you dismiss them (in bad faith) as socialist or as racist (if you don't know what racism means) or whatever.

It's a lame trap. I'll be serious about sharing solutions when YOU and your I'll show you're serious about discussing them.

---

So many words to evade the point.

But you are right about one thing - your description of the problem is very much unrealistic, not much more than emotional rant and political posturing in the guise of serious thought.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Exactly.

This is nothing more than an attempt to justify the idea that anyone who is successful, has done so through illegitimate means. That way, fewer people will object when they push for government enforced redistribution of wealth.

---

You're strangely self-centered on this.

You can't get over this idea that you're not perfect. Or that you have had some luck in your life.

That's fine. I mean, there are people who think the holocaust was a hoax and the earth is flat. Facts don't give a **** about your feelings.

But while you cry and whine and rub your bruised ego reality moves on.

Sorry, dude.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Wait. You're saying climate change isn't real?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Wait. You're saying climate change isn't real?

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Exactly.

This is nothing more than an attempt to justify the idea that anyone who is successful, has done so through illegitimate means. That way, fewer people will object when they push for government enforced redistribution of wealth.

---

You're strangely self-centered on this.

You can't get over this idea that you're not perfect. Or that you have had some luck in your life.

That's fine. I mean, there are people who think the holocaust was a hoax and the earth is flat. Facts don't give a **** about your feelings.

But while you cry and whine and rub your bruised ego reality moves on.

Sorry, dude.

---

I will regretfully jump back in here, and remind you of some of my previous posts on this subject. I'm the first to admit I've had some good fortune (born to a loving family, high IQ, community that established an expectation of hard work and success, able bodied, etc etc etc). My question to you is "So the hell what?" You keep talking about "removing barriers" and yet you've done nothing to explain what on earth that means.

New flash: Life isn't "fair." I know that offends your delicate millenial sensibilities, but it is a FACT (your favorite word). Not everyone will be born with the same intellect. Your posts on this thread and others make that abundantly clear. Not everyone will be born to the same kinds of supportive families. Not everyone will be born into the same financial setting. Not everyone will be born with the same vices or sin proclivities. Deal with it.

Acting like we have to some how magically "even the playing field" is an absolutely absurd and fairy land concept. It is typical of people like you to stomp their feet and demand we "do something" to make it so (without offering up any clue of what or how). I realize you want to live in Hogwarts or somesuch, but there aren't any magic wands in the real world. MAKE THE BEST OF THE HAND YOU'VE BEEN DEALT. In our country, people have the ability to do exactly that, and it's why people have flocked here for two centuries plus. But this notion of making things "fair" is something only a kindergartener or a member of today's leftist academia would espouse. It's nonsense. You can't make people the same IQ. You can't make them come from the same support network. Etc. So you can stop with this crap unless you have a real suggestion or solution to actually discuss. Just saying "life's not fair!" is gonna get you nothing but a Captain Obvious gif.

---

curtpenn said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Exactly.

This is nothing more than an attempt to justify the idea that anyone who is successful, has done so through illegitimate means. That way, fewer people will object when they push for government enforced redistribution of wealth.

---

You're strangely self-centered on this.

You can't get over this idea that you're not perfect. Or that you have had some luck in your life.

That's fine. I mean, there are people who think the holocaust was a hoax and the earth is flat. Facts don't give a **** about your feelings.

But while you cry and whine and rub your bruised ego reality moves on.

Sorry, dude.

---

I will regretfully jump back in here, and remind you of some of my previous posts on this subject. I'm the first to admit I've had some good fortune (born to a loving family, high IQ, community that established an expectation of hard work and success, able bodied, etc etc etc). My question to you is "So the hell what?" You keep talking about "removing barriers" and yet you've done nothing to explain what on earth that means.

New flash: Life isn't "fair." I know that offends your delicate millenial sensibilities, but it is a FACT (your favorite word). Not everyone will be born with the same intellect. Your posts on this thread and others make that abundantly clear. Not everyone will be born to the same kinds of supportive families. Not everyone will be born into the same financial setting. Not everyone will be born with the same vices or sin proclivities. Deal with it.

Acting like we have to some how magically "even the playing field" is an absolutely absurd and fairy land concept. It is typical of people like you to stomp their feet and demand we "do something" to make it so (without offering up any clue of what or how). I realize you want to live in Hogwarts or somesuch, but there aren't any magic wands in the real world. MAKE THE BEST OF THE HAND YOU'VE BEEN DEALT. In our country, people have the ability to do exactly that, and it's why people have flocked here for two centuries plus. But this notion of making things "fair" is something only a kindergartener or a member of today's leftist academia would espouse. It's nonsense. You can't make people the same IQ. You can't make them come from the same support network. Etc. So you can stop with this crap unless you have a real suggestion or solution to actually discuss. Just saying "life's not fair!" is gonna get you nothing but a Captain Obvious gif.

---

One of Jordan Peterson's frequent points is that the more we "level the playing field" while creating something presumably more "meritocratic", the greater will be the divergence of outcomes as an increasing number of people will manifest their inherently superior abilities, motivation, behavior, practices, etc. Interesting thought.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN said:

---

This is the Land of Opportunity. Not the Land of Meritocracy.

It oftentimes takes multiple generations of hard work and sacrifice in a family before reaching a certain socioeconomic status. That was certainly true in my family. Many of the people on this board had grandparents that were dirt poor starting families during the Great Depression. There was no Food Stamps. No Social Security. No Free Handouts. College wasn't even something they could afford to dream about. Many of them couldn't even go to high school.

Until they publish a study where they track a generation busting their ass working 60+ hours a week so that they can save enough to send their kids to college, make good grades, and bust their ass 60+ hours a week to send those kids to college, I don't want to hear about it.

Anybody who thinks life is always fair is in for a life of disappointment.

---

Are you black?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Exactly.

This is nothing more than an attempt to justify the idea that anyone who is successful, has done so through illegitimate means. That way, fewer people will object when they push for government enforced redistribution of wealth.

---

You're strangely self-centered on this.

You can't get over this idea that you're not perfect. Or that you have had some luck in your life.

That's fine. I mean, there are people who think the holocaust was a hoax and the earth is flat. Facts don't give a **** about your feelings.

But while you cry and whine and rub your bruised ego reality moves on.

Sorry, dude.

---

I will regretfully jump back in here, and remind you of some of my previous posts on this subject. I'm the first to admit I've had some good fortune (born to a loving family, high IQ, community that established an expectation of hard work and success, able bodied, etc etc etc). My question to you is "So the hell what?" You keep talking about "removing barriers" and yet you've done nothing to explain what on earth that means.

New flash: Life isn't "fair." I know that offends your delicate millenial sensibilities, but it is a FACT (your favorite word). Not everyone will be born with the same intellect. Your posts on this thread and others make that abundantly clear. Not everyone will be born to the same kinds of supportive families. Not everyone will be born into the same financial setting. Not everyone will be born with the same vices or sin proclivities. Deal with it.

Acting like we have to some how magically "even the playing field" is an absolutely absurd and fairy land concept. It is typical of people like you to stomp their feet and demand we "do something" to make it so (without offering up any clue of what or how). I realize you want to live in Hogwarts or somesuch, but there aren't any magic wands in the real world. MAKE THE BEST OF THE HAND YOU'VE BEEN DEALT. In our country, people have the ability to do exactly that, and it's why people have flocked here for two centuries plus. But this notion of making things "fair" is something only a kindergartener or a member of today's leftist academia would espouse. It's nonsense. You can't make people the same IQ. You can't make them come from the same support network. Etc. So you can stop with this crap unless you have a real suggestion or solution to actually discuss. Just saying "life's not fair!" is gonna get you nothing but a Captain Obvious gif.

---

One of Jordan Peterson's frequent points is that the more we "level the playing field" while creating something presumably more "meritocratic", the greater will be the divergence of outcomes as an increasing number of people will manifest their inherently superior abilities, motivation, behavior, practices, etc. Interesting thought.

---

He's also very much against equality of outcome.

---

curtpenn said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The very first response to the OP asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I have asked you several questions in good faith that you have refused to answer. I don't throw insults. I respond with courtesy and questions that I'm genuinely interested in your answers to. You just continue to avoid decent questions from myself and other throughout this thread.

You criticizing anyone for acting in bad faith in dialogue in this thread is a joke.

Done with this thread. I sincerely hope you don't respond like this when defending your dissertation and someone actually asks you a question.

---

This is just like the global warming arguments.

"There is a HORRIBLE problem and you are it"
"Okay, what do you recommend?"
"Bad Faith, non-serious response!!! Just trust me"
"Well, I'd like to know what you propose, the cost and look at possible consequences, intended and unintended."
"Didn't you read the OP? There is a HORRIBLE problem! You are an idiot"

Responding is a waste of time

---

Exactly.

This is nothing more than an attempt to justify the idea that anyone who is successful, has done so through illegitimate means. That way, fewer people will object when they push for government enforced redistribution of wealth.

---

You're strangely self-centered on this.

You can't get over this idea that you're not perfect. Or that you have had some luck in your life.

That's fine. I mean, there are people who think the holocaust was a hoax and the earth is flat. Facts don't give a **** about your feelings.

But while you cry and whine and rub your bruised ego reality moves on.

Sorry, dude.

---

I will regretfully jump back in here, and remind you of some of my previous posts on this subject. I'm the first to admit I've had some good fortune (born to a loving family, high IQ, community that established an expectation of hard work and success, able bodied, etc etc etc). My question to you is "So the hell what?" You keep talking about "removing barriers" and yet you've done nothing to explain what on earth that means.

New flash: Life isn't "fair." I know that offends your delicate millenial sensibilities, but it is a FACT (your favorite word). Not everyone will be born with the same intellect. Your posts on this thread and others make that abundantly clear. Not everyone will be born to the same kinds of supportive families. Not everyone will be born into the same financial setting. Not everyone will be born with the same vices or sin proclivities. Deal with it.

Acting like we have to some how magically "even the playing field" is an absolutely absurd and fairy land concept. It is typical of people like you to stomp their feet and demand we "do something" to make it so (without offering up any clue of what or how). I realize you want to live in Hogwarts or somesuch, but there aren't any magic wands in the real world. MAKE THE BEST OF THE HAND YOU'VE BEEN DEALT. In our country, people have the ability to do exactly that, and it's why people have flocked here for two centuries plus. But this notion of making things "fair" is something only a kindergartener or a member of today's leftist academia would espouse. It's nonsense. You can't make people the same IQ. You can't make them come from the same support network. Etc. So you can stop with this crap unless you have a real suggestion or solution to actually discuss. Just saying "life's not fair!" is gonna get you nothing but a Captain Obvious gif.

---

One of Jordan Peterson's frequent points is that the more we "level the playing field" while creating something presumably more "meritocratic", the greater will be the divergence of outcomes as an increasing number of people will manifest their inherently superior abilities, motivation, behavior, practices, etc. Interesting thought.

---

He's also very much against equality of outcome.

---

Is he against equality of outcome, or, just against it as a policy goal?

---

curtpenn said:

---

One of Jordan Peterson's frequent points is that the more we "level the playing field" while creating something presumably more "meritocratic", the greater will be the divergence of outcomes as an increasing number of people will manifest their inherently superior abilities, motivation, behavior, practices, etc. Interesting thought.

---

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.

---

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.

---

CHP Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN said:

---

This is the Land of Opportunity. Not the Land of Meritocracy.

It oftentimes takes multiple generations of hard work and sacrifice in a family before reaching a certain socioeconomic status. That was certainly true in my family. Many of the people on this board had grandparents that were dirt poor starting families during the Great Depression. There was no Food Stamps. No Social Security. No Free Handouts. College wasn't even something they could afford to dream about. Many of them couldn't even go to high school.

Until they publish a study where they track a generation busting their ass working 60+ hours a week so that they can save enough to send their kids to college, make good grades, and bust their ass 60+ hours a week to send those kids to college, I don't want to hear about it.

Anybody who thinks life is always fair is in for a life of disappointment.

---

Are you black?

---

Are there blacks who have achieved success via busting their ars and going down the road less traveled?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CHP Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN said:

---

This is the Land of Opportunity. Not the Land of Meritocracy.

It oftentimes takes multiple generations of hard work and sacrifice in a family before reaching a certain socioeconomic status. That was certainly true in my family. Many of the people on this board had grandparents that were dirt poor starting families during the Great Depression. There was no Food Stamps. No Social Security. No Free Handouts. College wasn't even something they could afford to dream about. Many of them couldn't even go to high school.

Until they publish a study where they track a generation busting their ass working 60+ hours a week so that they can save enough to send their kids to college, make good grades, and bust their ass 60+ hours a week to send those kids to college, I don't want to hear about it.

Anybody who thinks life is always fair is in for a life of disappointment.

---

Are you black?

---

Are there blacks who have achieved success via busting their ars and going down the road less traveled?

---

Yes, of course but you removed context. I was born in '47 in a segregated south to Methodist parents and a colleges educated. A black man born the same day in '47 to black parents in a segregated South to 8th grade educated parents faired much differently than me and not as well.
Merit had nothing to with my rise in life. I was born on 3rd base. The black man racing to first to avoid being thrown out. I had better shot at success. Is that so hard for you to see?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You think they deserve it because the rich are AUTOMATICALLY smarter and better than the poor.

I have said we have to do something to make it so merit actually goes to people who deserve it.

---

The rich are not AUTOMATICALLY smarter than the poor, just probably. Being rich doesn't make them better, whatever better means.

What is it we have to do so merit actually goes to the people who deserve it? I assume you and your group will decide who deserves it.

---

No not true at all. No one gets to decide. BBL is saying remove the barriers that meritocracy sets up.
Barriers are the issue.

---

1) No...BBL is not arguing that meritocracy sets up barriers. He is possibly (I don't like to speak for other posters) arguing to remove barriers to help create a society closer to a meritocracy as he defines it. I haven't seen his definition yet.

2) What barriers and how do you remove them?

---

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just remove barriers. We had a whole back-and-forth. Don't knock down the walls, just build a ramp.

---

Again, what barriers? How do you remove them?

Who gets access to the ramp? Who determines who gets access to the ramp? What makes up this ramp? Where is this ramp leading (what is the desired outcome)?

---

Can we stop with the bad-faith questions?

You keep going back to this. If there isn't a clear-cut internet message-board-ready post-solution for the problem, then the problem doesn't exist?

Is that your point?

---

As others have observed, the point is demonstrating your purpose. If you have a solution in mind, even a broad concept, let's hear it. If you have no solution at all in mind, then your complaint is really nothing more than an emotional rant.

That's OK to a point, by the way. You may have noted that some conservatives post emotional rants just like liberals do. As long as the rant is more or less on topic and avoids personal attacks, it's fine. And if someone gets ridiculous, just ignore them. But remember as well, when someone does nothing but post insults and emotional rant, they will be ignored, either by skipping the post or blocking the ranter entirely, which will lessen the value of the forum to that person.

---

Admitting reality is the purpose. Until we can agree on the reality of the situation, finding solutions is just an excuse for detractors to dismiss the facts on the ground.

I show you real solutions, you dismiss them (in bad faith) as socialist or as racist (if you don't know what racism means) or whatever.

It's a lame trap. I'll be serious about sharing solutions when YOU and your I'll show you're serious about discussing them.

---

So many words to evade the point.

But you are right about one thing - your description of the problem is very much unrealistic, not much more than emotional rant and political posturing in the guise of serious thought.

---

So your stance is that I have to have solutions to share with you or I can't talk?

---

No, your stance that I have to agree with your opinion as 'fact' on this issue is absurd.

We can agree that climate change happens. Beyond that, there is a lot of ground for reasonable disagreement, and any proposal which depends on acceptance of unproven claims is out of the question.

---

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.

---

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.

---

D. C. Bear 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.

---

It is ALL discretionary spending. Congress can do whatever it wants with whatever taxes are collected. If they wanted to end Social Security tomorrow, they could do it. Same thing with Medicare.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear 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.

---

It is ALL discretionary spending. Congress can do whatever it wants with whatever taxes are collected. If they wanted to end Social Security tomorrow, they could do it. Same thing with Medicare.

---

LOL. K.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear 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.

---

It is ALL discretionary spending. Congress can do whatever it wants with whatever taxes are collected. If they wanted to end Social Security tomorrow, they could do it. Same thing with Medicare.

---

LOL. K.

---

"LOL. K." does not change reality. Congress has no obligation to spend what you call "mandatory" spending. It is a distinction without a difference.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear 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.

---

It is ALL discretionary spending. Congress can do whatever it wants with whatever taxes are collected. If they wanted to end Social Security tomorrow, they could do it. Same thing with Medicare.

---

LOL. K.

---

"LOL. K." does not change reality. Congress has no obligation to spend what you call "mandatory" spending. It is a distinction without a difference.

---

Oh no, guy. You're completely right! These government economic terms are just meaningless.

Because some dude on the internet wants to start parsing semantics because he has nothing else better to do with his day.

LET'S ALL STOP MAKING REFERENCE TO ACTUAL TERMS BECAUSE DC BEAR HAS FIGURED OUT THE GAP IN IT ALL!

You've had some really bad posts. This might have been your worst.
https://www.cbo.gov/content/what-difference-between-mandatory-and-discretionary-spending

---

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"?

---