Random Politics & Religion #01

Progressives tend to view wealth as binary and wealth accumulation is arbitrary. Someone either is wealthy and the oppressor or they are not wealthy and the oppressed. Wealth is randomly accumulated from parents who acquired it from oppressing their neighbors. Since wealth is arbitrary, none of these people "earned" the right to it and because it's only generated from oppression it should be redistributed to the oppressed.

Progressives tend to view wealth as binary and wealth accumulation is arbitrary.

They want to restore the destroyed buildings but many experts are skeptical. Some of them were basically reduced to dust.

Following the recapture of Palmyra by the Syrian Army in March 2016, director of antiquities Maamoun Abdelkarim stated that the Temple of Bel, the Temple of Baalshamin and the Monumental Arch, which had been destroyed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in 2015, will be rebuilt using anastylosis.

This Forum would be a fairly good example how "progressives" view things.

Don't like that? Try any media source.. Lots of information out there on how "progressives" view things.

The fact that you think this stuff is "made up" is laughable.

That escalated quickly.


Eventually progressives might realize that wealth is generational. A single person can get rich from happenstance, but actual wealth takes generations to accumulate and is done in a progressive manner. It's also centered on family not society as a whole. Each wealthy family started with a set of parents who worked their *** off so that their kids had it marginally better then they did. Those kids then worked their *** off so that their kids had it better. Eventually you get to the point where a set of children is equipped with the right skills and motivations that they are able to take the leap and start generating wealth for the family. Sometimes it takes a single generation, often several, but it's not this impossible cliff to climb.

Progressives tend to view wealth as binary and wealth accumulation is arbitrary. Someone either is wealthy and the oppressor or they are not wealthy and the oppressed. Wealth is randomly accumulated from parents who acquired it from oppressing their neighbors. Since wealth is arbitrary, none of these people "earned" the right to it and because it's only generated from oppression it should be redistributed to the oppressed.

This view is extremely naive but makes for an easy jump to theft in the name of "social justice". Just because it's not likely for someone to go from "poor" to "super rich" in one generation, they desire to take all the wealth and ensure nobody can possess it. Well nobody except their own ministers, managers and political appointees, those are "important people" and "need" that wealth to serve "the people".

On the private school topic, successful people desire their children to be successful. Good parents will do everything in their power to set their children up for success. Education is one pathway to success if properly applied (liberal arts degree's are useless). Thus its reasonable that a successful person would chose to use their success to enhance their children's success. A poor person can not do this, nor should they. They haven't yet generated enough wealth and jumping to the top is an exercise it futility. They need to have a set of parents who actually cares enough about their child to make personal, often unpleasant, sacrifices for them. They need the children to actually care and value those sacrifices and dedicate themselves to making a better life for themselves. They then need those same children to have their own children and to pass down their values and create a culture of prosperity.

That culture of prosperity and dedication to family success is exactly how the poor Asian immigrants became the model minority and are some of the most successful people. It's how the poor European immigrants, you know those evil white overlords of the universe, became successful and wealth. Telling people they can't succeed without your help, and then keeping them reliant on your support for basic living is exactly how you set a population up for failure.

You could also argue against the actual words we are saying

I would love to know where you get these ideas on how "progressives" view things. Other than just making it up to make yourself seem superior.

while the leftist posters here stomp their feet and claim to not be exactly what hey are.

Don't forget Obama's words.

"You didn't build that"

I will just ignore personal insult anyway.

It shouldn't take multiple generations for families to hit the middle class. Everyone should have an equal opportunity at the education level they want.

Doesn't seem like you did right here... Besides pointing out something that is right in front of your face as an indicator of something else isn't an insult though if you do consider it one then you'd be accusing Rav of insulting Mosin as well...

There are instances (Gates, Zucherberg for example), where one goes from lower or lower/middle class to the top of the world in a single generation.

Sorry Flavin, I'm not taking your bait.

What Savael said was the absolute truth. Wealth just doesn't come from nothing. Hell, even playing/winning the lottery requires some effort (obtaining the money to buy the ticket). My family's wealth would have been squandered before I was even born if it wasn't for strong family ties on maintaining and preserving said wealth.

Gates and Zuckerberg were already upper class. They just went from upper class to the top 0.0001%.

The tech industry does enable some rapid advancement, but those are not the examples you'd want to use.