There most definitely is an unfair income inequality in this country but to vilify someone who’s only crime was to get in the ground floor of Google (or some other moneypot) is not really fair. Especially since some of these 1%ers are responsible for the fantastic gadgets that we all use today. Examples? What about all the occupy movements? They specifically coined the phrase 1%er and it wasn’t a compliment.
Yes, a 1%er probably has a lot more stuff than you. Are they happier? Do they make a more positive contribution to society? It depends on the person.
Anyway, when you lump a bunch of people into a single category accompanied by unfounded criticisms, you’re guilty of stereotyping which I think is ugly.
It was a slogan to point out income inequality. They weren’t saying “the 1% are all terrible people” or “let’s go kill the 1%”, they were saying “the 1% has a disproportionate amount of money.” This is the “basic observations about economics” I was talking about. Maybe it wasn’t a compliment but it doesn’t really seem like an insult either. If that’s your best example then you’ve got a pretty weak case.
Right, so find a few examples of that actually happening. 1%ers get vilified when they themselves vilify the poor by calling them moochers or whatever but other than that I don’t see this disturbing pattern that you’re seeing.
Anyway, when you lump a bunch of people into a single category accompanied by unfounded criticisms, you’re guilty of stereotyping which I think is ugly.
Are the rich any less guilty of doing this to the poor than vice versa?
Right, you provided an example. It was a bad example that doesn’t support your case. I guess you have no good examples that do support your case? If you’re trying to actually convince me of something then your response “I gave you one” is not a very good way to go about it.
I’m not the first in this discussion to employ straw man arguments:
Yes, a 1%er probably has a lot more stuff than you. Are they happier? Do they make a more positive contribution to society? It depends on the person.
Anyway, when you lump a bunch of people into a single category accompanied by unfounded criticisms, you’re guilty of stereotyping which I think is ugly.
I’d settle for some kind of a parachute-safety-system, where if the plane was going to crash - we wouldn’t all be destined to disintegrate on ground impact.
(Cargo section falls out from under, wings with fuel and all the weight are ejected from the fuselage and voila)
