Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

Remove this Banner Ad

It's not a strawman. You need to explain how it is luck. A person works hard, accumulates wealth. They decide to have children. They decide to leave an inheritance to their children. Where is the luck?
How about you give me an example of chance - an event out of their control - that might affect a person's life for the better or worse?
 
How about you give me an example of chance - an event out of their control - that might affect a person's life for the better or worse?
A meteorite strikes their house. Both parents die before they reach adulthood through causes outside control (as you noted). They get raped by a paedo priest as a child. Etc
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lottery wins by the by aren't an example of good fortune, because most of the people who play the lottery are idiots, and winners invariably blow the winnings.
 
Over the long run, how does it not? Are you saying that Jeff Bezos is not rich through hard work and accurate foresight?
And here we are back at chance and all the other things you refuse to understand about the universe.
 
"Randomness (or luck) plays a huge part in life’s results, and outcomes that hinge on random events should be viewed as different from those that do not… Clearly my way of judging matters is probabilistic in nature; it relies on the notion of what could have probably happened… If we have heard of [history’s great generals and inventors], it is simply because they took considerable risks, along with thousands of others, and happened to win. They were intelligent, courageous, noble, had the highest possible obtainable culture in their day – but so did thousands of others who live in the musty footnotes of history. "

"The fact that a strategem or action worked – under the circumstances that unfolded – doesn’t necessarily prove the decision behind it was wise. Maybe what ultimately made the decision a success was a completely unlikely event, something that was just a matter of luck. In that case, that decision – as successful as it turned out to be – may have been unwise, and the many other histories that could have happened would have shown the error of the decision. "

"The first thing I remember learning at Wharton in 1963 was that the correctness of a decision can’t be judged from the outcome. Because of the randomness at work in the world and the unpredictability of the future, lots of bad decisions lead to good results, and lots of good decisions end in failure.

The correctness of a decision can’t be judged from the outcome. Nevertheless, that’s how people assess it. A good decision is one that is optimal at the time it is made, when the future is by definition unknown. [It is] one that a logical, intelligent and informed person would have made under the circumstances as they appeared at the time, before the outcome was known."


http://www.richardhughesjones.com/howard-marks-nassim-taleb-luck-randomness/
 
Over the long run, how does it not? Are you saying that Jeff Bezos is not rich through hard work and accurate foresight?
Absolutely, he needed a large dollop of luck along the way too. Same with Zuckerberg, Gates, Trump or anyone else who has managed to accumulate massive amounts of money. That's not to say that hard work and accurate foresight played no part though.
 
The act of taxation to pay for public welfare spending projects is taking directly of the effort of those with to give to those with less.

I don't think anyone disputes that.

But you didn’t say ‘those with less’ originally, you said ‘the left’. So welfare driven taxation spending is for the Left?

Obviously you can’t have meant that, so I assume you must have been invoking the common straw man argument that the Left advocates equality of outcomes irrespective of opportunity and merit. No?
 
But you didn’t say ‘those with less’ originally, you said ‘the left’. So welfare driven taxation spending is for the Left?

Obviously you can’t have meant that, so I assume you must have been invoking the common straw man argument that the Left advocates equality of outcomes irrespective of opportunity and merit. No?
I was walking along the path that the left is happy to commit the hard work of other people for their benefit.
 
What was the luck he had?

Well, I guess being able to borrow a large sum of money from his parents to invest in his business would be one as that option available to relatively few people would be one example

Do you think that he would have ended up where he is now regardless of what his circumstances were? Or even if they were the same, that things would have panned out the way they did?
 
Well, I guess being able to borrow a large sum of money from his parents to invest in his business would be one as that option available to relatively few people would be one example

Do you think that he would have ended up where he is now regardless of what his circumstances were? Or even if they were the same, that things would have panned out the way they did?
Bezos was born to a teenage mother, and his father left the family when he was an infant. It’s a bit strange to say he was lucky. Not exactly privileged circumstances.

A number of decisions his mum and adoptive father had to make to ensure he was brought up right enabled him to succeed.

Is there a good parenting privilege?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sorry, I'm not. If you are attending University you are in the minority of people able to get further education and are far more likely to be senior figures in industries and politics than those who aren't. How exactly are they vulnerable, as you put it?
Privileged under vigilante enforcement, and vulnerable when it suits the argument.
 
You're reading things into my posts that aren't there. This one is an absolute straw man.
Bringing the lottery into it was one hell of a strawman.

You're arguing like a woman. Soon as you don't like the content, you go rogue and demand the conversation be set around a different set of terms.

Transparent.
 
Bringing the lottery into it was one hell of a strawman.

You're arguing like a woman. Soon as you don't like the content, you go rogue and demand the conversation be set around a different set of terms.

Transparent.
Really? That's where you're going with your argument?
 
Bringing the lottery into it was one hell of a strawman.

You're arguing like a woman. Soon as you don't like the content, you go rogue and demand the conversation be set around a different set of terms.

Transparent.
Wow.

* off.
 
There is randomness in the universe, sure. Who denies that? What you are arguing is that the randomness governs who you are born to. That is not the case.
Again, straw man. Either that or you are entirely unable to follow an argument.
 
Lol


Check out the story of Abraham’s trusted servant Eliezer who chose Rivka to be Isaac’s wife — all because of her kindness.”

She was 3 years old.
I can only imagine what future societies will judge the actions of now over.

I expect it will be the medical treatment but the only word I have to say on that is a video of a doctor from the future who was rescuing his colleague from having a hole drilled in his head to relieve intra cranial pressure caused by a fall on an aircraft carrier.
 
Absolutely, he needed a large dollop of luck along the way too. Same with Zuckerberg, Gates, Trump or anyone else who has managed to accumulate massive amounts of money. That's not to say that hard work and accurate foresight played no part though.
The question then is what is hard work and what is accurate foresight? How far can it get you without something more?

A child in a Victorian work house could have worked their fingers to the bone, knowing the end was death of some disease or other. Where did that hard work and accurate foresight get them?

As per the Marks quote - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hypocrisy-of-the-left-part-3.1204489/post-59281744 - your foresight could have been totally accurate based on all of the possibly available information. But randomness is not available information and your impeccable analysis and prediction could be undone by a mouse chewing a wire two streets over. Or not chewing a wire. Or a drunk driver. Or a lawyer not reading the law properly.

Events out of your control, even if known about (mice do chew wires, people do drink and drive, lawyers do make mistakes), are unpredictable in their timing and effect.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top