Egalitarianism

[el_profe]

I just thought I post this great article on egalitarianism. I would of put a link but ive noticed no one actually reads it. I just want to see what most of you think about this.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3417

Egalitarianism: The New Torture Rack
by Gary Hull (January 11, 2004)

Summary: Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an "equality" in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot. Trends in modern education reflect this egalitarian hatred of achievement. In an attempt to "dumb down" all students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability. Rather, they focus on the slow and the diseased, crippling the most talented in the process.

[www.CapitalismMagazine.com]

Imagine the following Academy Award ceremony. There are no awards for best picture or best actor. Instead, every picture gets a certificate and every actor receives a prize. That is not an awards ceremony, you say? So it isn't. But it is an egalitarian's dream — and an achiever's torment.

An egalitarian wants equality, not under the law, but in all practical consequences: equality of income, of praise and blame, of rewards and punishments. He derides, as "elitist" and individualistic, all rankings, evaluations, competitions. Said Richard Rodzinski, executive director of the Van Cliburn Piano Competition: "We must stamp out the concept of 'better.' It should always be understood that we're not saying number one is better than number two."

At the Iowa State Fair some years ago, the 4-H Club gave 3,500 competitors identical multicolored ribbons, in lieu of first-, second- and third-place ribbons. Why? Because it didn't want to single out any one entrant as more deserving than another.

That some people are exceptional — that some have more intelligence, are more beautiful or work harder than others — is a threat to egalitarians. Talent and ability create inequality. To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong — raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak. We must worship a zero and sneer at a creator.

Feminists thus smear fashion models for being more beautiful than ordinary women. Liberal commentators chastise Americans for being proud that our Olympic athletes won more medals than did other athletes. Industrial giants, such as Bill Gates, are vilified for making "too much" money. And America's greatest companies are persecuted by the Justice Department's Antitrust Division for having better management, and thereby a larger market share, than does the competition.

The egalitarian's hatred of excellence has metastasized throughout the culture. In order to level everyone down to the lowest common denominator, egalitarians sacrifice the achiever. Nowhere is this more dramatic — and tragic — than in education.

In the past, educators nurtured students of high intelligence. Such students were showered with magnet schools, accelerated curricula, individual attention and academic merits. Now, though, the entire focus has shifted. Education today cripples the bright and inquisitive child by ignoring him — by not spending time and money developing his superior ability. In the name of not rewarding brains, the attention is now on students who are unable or unwilling to learn. For example, the state of New York spends one-quarter of its budget on slow learners.

To accommodate the slowest learners, the entire K-12 curriculum has been "dumbed down." And high schools on both coasts are dispensing with awards honoring top seniors. They don't select "the most likely to succeed" or the "most talented." These schools no longer offer class rankings, nor do they select a class valedictorian. In today's age of achievement-hatred, it is okay to spend millions on playground psychopaths. But it is considered morally low to honor a bright student.

If you have ever wondered why the number of great artists, intellects and achievers has dwindled, you should blame egalitarianism.

And you should seek out a cure — a view of justice which tells you to evaluate and reward a man based on his talents. Yes it is true that some people are born with greater natural endowments. But it is also true that it requires choices, effort and thinking to develop endowments into talents. Michael Jordan was born with fabulous athletic potential. But it took years of excruciating effort to hone that potential into masterful skills. Thomas Edison was born with great native intelligence. But the knowledge required to create unprecedented inventions was the result of his heroic mental effort. Other inventors gave up when problems became intractable. But Edison developed the courage and pit-bull determination to persevere.

What would happen to a Thomas Edison today? If he survived school with his mind intact, he would be shackled by government regulators. His wealth would be confiscated by the IRS. He would be accused of "unfair competition" for inventing so many more products than his competitors. And university professors would get tenure arguing that a wino is his moral equivalent.

Is it any mystery why there isn't more talent in the world today?

[redstar2000]

. I would have put a link but I've noticed no one actually reads it.

Yes, you and the other cappies on the board may just as well forget about posting links. Since your "soul mate" A Prick posted a link to a "poisoned site"--one that infects the user's computer with a virus--no one with any sense will click on any of your cappie links again.
...................................

Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an "equality" in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot.

No, the egalitarians do not "hate" the "exceptional man" (however that might be defined). It is the exceptional reward that is up for question...especially when--as under capitalism--it is wildly disproportionate to the actual effort.

For someone who suffers from mental retardation, it requires great mental effort to dress oneself correctly or prepare a meal. For someone like Marx or Einstein, it requires great mental effort to think of "a whole new way of looking at reality".

The question is: should the genius live "in opulence" while the "retard" suffers on the streets?

Yes, the genius may make a magnificent contribution to the advancement of the human species...and is likely to be honored in the popular imagination regardless of "official honors".

What more is required?

Do you think Marx labored so that he might receive a "knighthood"? Did Einstein puzzle over the nature of light so that one day he could get a Nobel Prize?

The author, for all his praise of "exceptional men" (he ignores women entirely except as "fashion models"...&#33, shows that he truly mis-understands the motivations of genuinely exceptional people.

His piece is really in praise of those who possess the "talent" to "make money"...the only kind of "genius" that capitalism really honors.

If you can make a fortune--and manage to avoid prison--you are an "exceptional man" in the eyes of capitalism's defenders. All others are "fools" or "suckers".

That some people are exceptional — that some have more intelligence, are more beautiful or work harder than others — is a threat to egalitarians.

No, it is a "threat" (minor) to those who--for their own reasons--wish to create the appearance of equality.

Modern capitalism is, as regards the public, about the appearance of equality--the image of a society in which "all can succeed".

This is fairly recent; prior to World War I, the aristocrats of capital publicly displayed their opulence in much the same fashion as their feudal predecessors. The idea was to awe the "rabble" with their magnificence.

Unlike serfs, workers were not "awed" but instead became hostile. Thus the trend began of displaying wealth "behind closed doors"...far out of the public eye. The curtain is occasionally lifted--we see the stretch limo or read about the $10 million dollar party--but, in the course of our normal lives, we really have no idea of how our oligarchs really live...or what it really costs to maintain that standard on a daily basis.

The author further makes the assumption that there is a positive correlation between "more intelligence", "more beauty", or "harder work" and reward; that is, money.

Once again, this completely ignores the real world. Most members of the ruling class are no smarter than average, no better looking, and certainly no harder working than ordinary people.

What they are is luckier...being born to great wealth makes a huge difference in your life. In fact, it makes "all the difference in the world".

Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong — raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak. We must worship a zero and sneer at a creator.

Social Darwinist crap! How exactly are the "competent" and the "strong" being "torn down"? Where is the evidence (outside of religion) where we are "worshiping a zero"?

Feminists thus smear fashion models for being more beautiful than ordinary women.

Smear? More "beautiful"? What feminists have actually pointed out is that over the last three or four decades, models have become less and less representative of what women normally look like.

Marilyn Monroe was a beautiful woman but she looked like a woman. Many contemporary models look like "boys with breasts".

This discrepancy is calculated to create a sense of "inferiority" and anxiety among women about their looks...hopefully (in the minds of capitalists) leading to the increased purchase of "beauty products" and "fashion".

Liberal commentators chastise Americans for being proud that our Olympic athletes won more medals than did other athletes.

Not being a liberal myself, I'll take his word for it. But it seems to me that "pride" in the athletic achievements (or any achievements) of others is a pretty foolish emotion.

One can enjoy the excellence of athletic performance without getting one's own ego mixed up in it...can't one?

I do.

Industrial giants, such as Bill Gates, are vilified for making "too much" money.

"Too much money" for too little effort to be precise. His real contributions to information technology are far overshadowed by those of many others.

But the greedy little bastard knew how to make money off the work of others...and did it better than many ever have.

And America's greatest companies are persecuted by the Justice Department's Antitrust Division for having better management, and thereby a larger market share, than does the competition.

The author is, at least, not without a sense of humor.

American anti-trust law is a joke and its enforcement is an even bigger joke.

But I guess he felt it was too awkward to say what he really wants to say: "monopoly is good!".

To accommodate the slowest learners, the entire K-12 curriculum has been "dumbed down." And high schools on both coasts are dispensing with awards honoring top seniors. They don't select "the most likely to succeed" or the "most talented." These schools no longer offer class rankings, nor do they select a class valedictorian. In today's age of achievement-hatred, it is okay to spend millions on playground psychopaths. But it is considered morally low to honor a bright student.

Quite a rant, none of which makes any sense. I did like that phrase "playground psychopaths", though. It has a nice "ring" to it, even though it has no real world referents at all.

And why would a "bright student" need to be "honored"? S/he knows s/he is bright; so does everyone who knows her/him. What purpose is served by putting them on a stage and saying, "Sure enough, you're bright".

As it happens, I finished in third place in a high school graduating class of more than 350 kids...and I was "honored" for doing so. Big fucking deal! All it turned out to mean is that I was "smart enough" to be admitted to Columbia University...but not rich enough to move to New York City and actually attend this prestigious institution.

That's my "reward" for making the "dumb mistake" of being born into the working class in a capitalist society.

Is it any mystery why there isn't more talent in the world today?

Not to me. There's only "so much room" for "talent" in the capitalist world...and nearly all of it is reserved for the children of the upper classes. The enormous talents of the working class lie dormant and unwanted...we are simply required to "shut up" and "do what we're told".

No!



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Summary: Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an "equality" in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot. Trends in modern education reflect this egalitarian hatred of achievement. In an attempt to "dumb down" all students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability. Rather, they focus on the slow and the diseased, crippling the most talented in the process.

If this were true the human race would be severely suffering. However, I think you will notice that our education systems continue to provide western economies with the mental excellence needed to generate the technological achievements and prosperity that we currently do.

Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong — raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak. We must worship a zero and sneer at a creator.

This writer really is going too far, I have yet to meet anybody who thinks the above.

Is it any mystery why there isn't more talent in the world today?

Obviously there is, we are hadly wading through a sea of poverty in western developed countries. You long for a return to times when the upper class was even more superior, when they had all the power and all the wealth.

[Hegemonicretribution]

That was a rather thought provoking piece, and I, although not entirely agree with you. It enfuriates me that the bright are penalised, that money that could be used to educate people, and increase productivity, is wasted on some whining little bastard that will do nothing but their life except claim benifits, taking money gained by people that earned it.

However I don't blame egalitarians, I blame utilitarians. Why should education go for a middle ground? Trying to cripple achievers and those, not suited to a system aimed at one branch of society.

To me at least, it makes sense to allow people the choice to education, those that will not benifit should not be forced to go, and use up resources that could be better used. Likewise everyone should be allowed the option of education, whenever. This should all be free, at least ideally speaking. You may well dislike this, but it would increase the chances of finding your Einstiens or Newtons. This is because, by selecting from a wider pool, the best truely do get the oppurtunities, and the wealthy can keep there money, especially if it would be wasted on a place of no use to their idiotic son or daughter. They could also keep their money if their child would succeed. O.K. yes this still benifits the rich, and affording tutors and other aids is a bonus of having cash. However the poorer students could still cruise by on their ability.

Whilst not an ideal capitalist or communist sollution, its free, but the sylabus is irrelevant, and seeks only to further the oppression of the proletariat etc... it gives the bright a chance to prosper, if they are bright enough to realise how, and the stupid the chance to work in menial jobs from younger and younger ages thus increasing the productivity of the nation

p.s. There is talent, but it is no longer highlighted, and therefore fails to reach commercial (the only real) success. I blame those damn over-achieveing media bosses

[el_profe]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Jan 12 2004, 02:39 PM

Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an "equality" in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot.

No, the egalitarians do not "hate" the "exceptional man" (however that might be defined). It is the exceptional reward that is up for question...especially when--as under capitalism--it is wildly disproportionate to the actual effort.

For someone who suffers from mental retardation, it requires great mental effort to dress oneself correctly or prepare a meal. For someone like Marx or Einstein, it requires great mental effort to think of "a whole new way of looking at reality".

The question is: should the genius live "in opulence" while the "retard" suffers on the streets?

"exceptional man"? he didnt say that, he said " THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE EXCEPTIONAL" .
to get an exceptional reward their first must be a great effort. You dont make a great invention without great effor (most of the time). You dont get to be a superstar athlete without putting hours of training into what your doing.
I dont know why you decided to compare a retard and einstein. that theri is a reward for a genious does not mean that the retard will be punished, Where do you get that from?

Yes, the genius may make a magnificent contribution to the advancement of the human species...and is likely to be honored in the popular imagination regardless of "official honors".

What more is required?

Do you think Marx labored so that he might receive a "knighthood"? Did Einstein puzzle over the nature of light so that one day he could get a Nobel Prize?

What more is required? nothing, but dont you think they might want to profit from their magnificent contributions? If they dont good for them but if they do why do you want to make them seem evil?
No, Marx and einstein had their own challenges(they challenged themselfes), they did not (i dont hink so) work hard just so that they could get an award.

The author, for all his praise of "exceptional men" (he ignores women entirely except as "fashion models"...&#33, shows that he truly mis-understands the motivations of genuinely exceptional people.

His piece is really in praise of those who possess the "talent" to "make money"...the only kind of "genius" that capitalism really honors.

he said "exceptional people" he does not ignore women, WOW you really decide to twist words and interprit what he said totally wrong, I think you do it on purpose. Instead of trying to disprove the author you attack him and try to discredit him, weak.
He just gave the example
of how feminist hate beutifull women that use that to make a profit (models).

If you can make a fortune--and manage to avoid prison--you are an "exceptional man" in the eyes of capitalism's defenders. All others are "fools" or "suckers".

He never said that, and no, youre a crook if you do that.

Unlike serfs, workers were not "awed" but instead became hostile. Thus the trend began of displaying wealth "behind closed doors"...far out of the public eye. The curtain is occasionally lifted--we see the stretch limo or read about the $10 million dollar party--but, in the course of our normal lives, we really have no idea of how our oligarchs really live...or what it really costs to maintain that standard on a daily basis.

, No i think we can see now more than ever what they do with their money. .

The author further makes the assumption that there is a positive correlation between "more intelligence", "more beauty", or "harder work" and reward; that is, money.

Once again, this completely ignores the real world. Most members of the ruling class are no smarter than average, no better looking, and certainly no harder working than ordinary people.

you grab his examples and make generalizations. He did not say all rich people are better looking, more intelligent and work harder. Some people are inteligetn but dont know how to or dont want to use that intelligence.

What they are is luckier...being born to great wealth makes a huge difference in your life. In fact, it makes "all the difference in the world".

. All rich people are born rich?? 70 perent of rich people are 1st generation rich. Was bill gates always rich, how about that guy form yahoo? or the owner of dell, was andrew carnegie always rich? )no actually he was a poor immigrant). Was sammy sosa rich? was vladimir guerrero rich? was magic johsnon rich? was larry bird rich? was emmit smith rich? was anna kournikova rich? was the owner of walmart always rich?................

Social Darwinist crap! How exactly are the "competent" and the "strong" being "torn down"? Where is the evidence (outside of religion) where we are "worshiping a zero"?

that is what egilitarianism is trying to do. you don think not having class rankings or a class valedictorian is punishing the good student??

Feminists thus smear fashion models for being more beautiful than ordinary women.

Smear? More "beautiful"? What feminists have actually pointed out is that over the last three or four decades, models have become less and less representative of what women normally look like.

Marilyn Monroe was a beautiful woman but she looked like a woman. Many contemporary models look like "boys with breasts".

This discrepancy is calculated to create a sense of "inferiority" and anxiety among women about their looks...hopefully (in the minds of capitalists) leading to the increased purchase of "beauty products" and "fashion".

feminist dont like models and they hate porn stars. Its the choice of the model or the porn star to chose the carrer that they want to do. And feminist(jealous, ugly fat lesbians that hate men) should not try to stop them for this.

Liberal commentators chastise Americans for being proud that our Olympic athletes won more medals than did other athletes.

Not being a liberal myself, I'll take his word for it. But it seems to me that "pride" in the athletic achievements (or any achievements) of others is a pretty foolish emotion.

One can enjoy the excellence of athletic performance without getting one's own ego mixed up in it...can't one?

I do.

Yes, but the whole world praises athletic achievment (cuba,china and the USSR also did/do this). I personally think its because so many people try sports that they know how hard it must be to get to be so good. In the olympics the athlete represents their country so obvioulsy people want them to win and when they do they receive praise.

Industrial giants, such as Bill Gates, are vilified for making "too much" money.

"Too much money" for too little effort to be precise. His real contributions to information technology are far overshadowed by those of many others.

But the greedy little bastard knew how to make money off the work of others...and did it better than many ever have.

Sort of, he was able to combine other great inventions and he knew how to use them, cause we know he wasnt the smartest computer guy. Part of why he has a monopoly is because of the patents, the patents last too long.

And why would a "bright student" need to be "honored"? S/he knows s/he is bright; so does everyone who knows her/him. What purpose is served by putting them on a stage and saying, "Sure enough, you're bright".

As it happens, I finished in third place in a high school graduating class of more than 350 kids...and I was "honored" for doing so. Big fucking deal! All it turned out to mean is that I was "smart enough" to be admitted to Columbia University...but not rich enough to move to New York City and actually attend this prestigious institution.

That's my "reward" for making the "dumb mistake" of being born into the working class in a capitalist society.

If the student does not want to be honored, good for him. But some students actually do like (have it almost as a goal) to be the best student. It also ives the students incentives, allthough they shouldnt need them, and some dont need incentives to do good. But its bad that the whole system has to be slowed down for slower stuednt, just let the better ones get advanced classes if they want to.

And look at all the examples i gave of people who where not rich(some where very very very poor) and now are rich.

Is it any mystery why there isn't more talent in the world today?

Not to me. There's only "so much room" for "talent" in the capitalist world...and nearly all of it is reserved for the children of the upper classes. The enormous talents of the working class lie dormant and unwanted...we are simply required to "shut up" and "do what we're told".

Once again you talk about the upper classes. You must be jealous and hate poeple that are rich. Most of the rich where born rich.
What is so bad that a parent wants to leave his kids money?

[redstar2000]

"Exceptional man"? He didn't say that, he said "THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE EXCEPTIONAL".

I don't wish to be "picky", but do you think you could take the trouble to read what you "cut & paste"?

Here is the first sentence of your article...

Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an "equality" in end results, hates the exceptional man...

Emphasis added.

I don't know why you decided to compare a retard and Einstein. That there is a reward for a genius does not mean that the retard will be punished. Where do you get that from?

From reality, of course...something which you persistently ignore.

Those who are "less bright" are punished by capitalism as it actually operates. (Unless, of course, Mr. Van Dummy is born to wealthy parents...in which case he lives a pretty good life even if he's not altogether aware of it.)

A disproportionate number of people in prison and living on the streets are obviously mentally retarded; instead of proper care for their needs, capitalism prescribes poverty, prosecution, and even execution.

That's "punishment" in my dictionary.

...but don't you think they might want to profit from their magnificent contributions?

Why? If you really have made a "magnificent contribution" (or think you have) then you already know it and the rest of the world either knows it or will find out sooner or later.

The only reason "profit" comes up is because that is how prestige and status are measured in capitalist society.

The greater your net worth, the more "truly exceptional" you are. Even Mr. Van Dummy, with sufficient wealth, ranks "higher", is more "exceptional" than even the greatest scientist, artist, athlete, etc.

...but if they do [want to profit] why do you want to make them seem evil?

Because "profit" does not "fall out of the sky". If one person grows wealthier, many others grow relatively poorer...and sometimes absolutely poorer.

If I manage to steal $1.00 from each and every person in the United States, I'll accumulate a tidy little fortune of $280,000,000 or so--making me an "exceptional man"--and everyone else will be $1.00 poorer.

Reality is more complex than this example; I realize that. But you get the idea.

...and no, you're a crook if you do that.

Not necessarily. Under capitalism, a "crook" is the guy that stole your car or robs a convenience store or ingests an "illegal substance".

Someone who can steal millions or even billions is "a businessman", an "industrial giant", or, in the words of your mentor, "an exceptional man"...until such time as he goes to prison, if he is convicted.

The "big boys" at Enron have yet to be indicted, much less convicted.

You may call them "crooks" if you like; they are laughing all the way to the (offshore) bank.

He did not say all rich people are better looking, more intelligent and work harder.

No, because if he said that in plain language, people would laugh at him and call him stupid.

But with all his talk of the "exceptional man", that is what he implies.

All rich people are born rich?? 70 percent of rich people are 1st generation rich.

If you believe that, I've got a "really great" investment opportunity just for you.

...was the owner of walmart always rich?

No, but his three kids will be. I think they're tied for 3rd place on Fortune's "Billionaire List". How's that for "exceptional" achievement?

you don't think not having class rankings or a class valedictorian is punishing the good student??

Nope. I don't think that kind of crap means diddly squat. And I also think that anyone who gets "puffed up" over something like that is not as bright as they think they are...regardless of their grade-point standing.

feminist (jealous, ugly fat lesbians that hate men)

They're not necessarily jealous, not necessarily ugly, not necessarily fat, and not all lesbians.

They don't even hate "all men".

But they do hate men like you.

I think you've earned it.

In the Olympics, the athlete represents their country so obviously people want them to win, and when they do they receive praise.

Represents? Obviously?

Yes, I know that many people think those things. But I think they are foolish things to think. An athlete from the United States does not "represent" me; I didn't choose her as "the best the country has to offer".

I don't care who wins in the Olympics or any other sporting event; a good performance is what is interesting to me...assuming I find the particular sport interesting to watch.

You have to remember that sports is a business..."winning" is "nice" but making money is essential.

Once again you talk about the upper classes. You must be jealous and hate people that are rich. Most of the rich were born rich. What is so bad that a parent wants to leave his kids money?

Here you contradict yourself; earlier you said that most rich people were not born rich, and now you admit that they are...and say "what's wrong with that"?

What's "wrong" is that it shatters your whole argument about "exceptional men".

The only "exceptional" thing they did was manage to get born and stay alive long enough to inherit.

Something even a "retard" can do.



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[el_profe]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Jan 13 2004, 06:19 AM

"Exceptional man"? He didn't say that, he said "THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE EXCEPTIONAL".

I don't wish to be "picky", but do you think you could take the trouble to read what you "cut & paste"?

Here is the first sentence of your article...

Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an "equality" in end results, hates the exceptional man...

Emphasis added.

That is the summary, I was talking about the article.

Not necessarily. Under capitalism, a "crook" is the guy that stole your car or robs a convenience store or ingests an "illegal substance".

Someone who can steal millions or even billions is "a businessman", an "industrial giant", or, in the words of your mentor, "an exceptional man"...until such time as he goes to prison, if he is convicted.

The "big boys" at Enron have yet to be indicted, much less convicted.

You may call them "crooks" if you like; they are laughing all the way to the (offshore) bank.

No they are also crooks, dont confuse making money illegaly with making money legally.

...was the owner of walmart always rich?

No, but his three kids will be. I think they're tied for 3rd place on Fortune's "Billionaire List". How's that for "exceptional" achievement?

But theyre kids worked for the billions. As most if not all of them have worked to improve the family bussiness. They proabably started working when therye dad was not even a multi-millionare.

feminist (jealous, ugly fat lesbians that hate men)

They're not necessarily jealous, not necessarily ugly, not necessarily fat, and not all lesbians.

They don't even hate "all men".

But they do hate men like you.

I think you've earned it.

Feminist dont hate men, Have you ever heard what Martha Burke wanted to do to men, so that they could be good fathers?, listen feminist got their goal accomplished 50 years ago. They should of been *****ing about the taliban and how muslim women are trated in islamic countries before *****ing about being member in a stupid golf club. And I gurantee, than every feminist at least has one of the qualities I described. Where theyre any feminist groups in the USSR or are their in Cuba? its a question.
And most feminist that hate models and/or pornstars, playmates are really just jealous.

You have to remember that sports is a business..."winning" is "nice" but making money is essential.

NOt the olympics.

Once again you talk about the upper classes. You must be jealous and hate people that are rich. Most of the rich were born rich. What is so bad that a parent wants to leave his kids money?

Here you contradict yourself; earlier you said that most rich people were not born rich, and now you admit that they are...and say "what's wrong with that"?

Yes, my bad, it was a typing mistake, I ment to say, Most of the rich werent born rich. And the last sentece was suppose to be, what is so bad that a parent wants to leave money to a kid.

[redstar2000]

That is the summary, I was talking about the article.

So was I...

...a view of justice which tells you to evaluate and reward a man based on his talents.

Ok?

No, they are also crooks.

Such innocence.

But their kids worked for the billions. As most if not all of them have worked to improve the family business. They probably started working when their dad was not even a multi-millionaire.

Yes, they worked "really hard" too, I'll bet.

Do you realize how silly you sound when you say things like that?

Feminist[s] don't hate men, have you ever heard what Martha Burke wanted to do to men, so that they could be good fathers?...blah, blah, blah.

I can easily imagine what they'd like to do to you...and I think I'll just stand aside and let them do it.

You pretty much "have it coming".

NOT the Olympics.

Especially the Olympics...it is such a huge money-maker that bribes fly like swarms of locusts.

Most of the rich weren't born rich.

I beg to disagree.

What is so bad that a parent wants to leave money to a kid?

I repeat myself: because it shatters your argument about "exceptional men".

If you inherit serious wealth, you are already "exceptional" without having to lift a finger.

The game is "over" when the lawyer reads the will. You won!

Congratulations, son.



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas