Why there are so many losers?

I am not winning.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Look at how many replies..

Jesus didn't brag about how many nails they put into him when was crucified, I don't think you should either.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I am still right.

Precious.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

In general, people can raise above their misfortune by saving, hard work, studying, getting a good job, and investing wisely.

Lot's of people could be great cyclists with practice. It still takes a bicycle though. You shouldn't trivialize the hard work many struggling people do.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

The fact that they don ` t do it is because they are mentally weak. This is why they are losers.

They do, and they aren't.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Their mental weakness is due to the materialistic culture around them.

And yet the most wealthy are the ones most invested in the materialistic culture.

You're still wrong.

A
R
T

Lot's of people could be great cyclists with practice. It still takes a bicycle though. You shouldn't trivialize the hard work many struggling people do.

Jesus didn't brag

You're avoiding the rich, because it contradicts your garbage rant. You've credited materialism as the problem for the poor, and called them losers. You aren't very well versed on the topic of poverty, so stop pretending. You're embarrassing yourself.

A
R
T

You're a bragging idiot? Is that a metaphor?

A
R
T

What kind of stuff do you make? What kind of bullshit are you interested in pulling out of an ass? Is that a metaphor?

A
R
T

You should be sorry? Dumb bitch? Is that a metaphor?

A
R
T

I equate losers with people with very little money, and "little money" is depended on how much one can buy at any given time. So, I can, without being vague classify people as "losers", because they are below a certain income.

"No dumb bitch?" Make up your mind. What's with all the metaphors?

A
R
T

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I equate losers with people with very little money, and "little money" is depended on how much one can buy at any given time. So, I can, without being vague classify people as "losers", because they are below a certain income.

Below what certain income, TE? Would you like to share the amount in dollars per year?

Any income below a certain poverty line is defined by the government. It also depends in the region you are in.

I equate losers with people with very little money, and "little money" is depended on how much one can buy at any given time. So, I can, without being vague classify people as "losers", because they are below a certain income.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Any income below a certain poverty line is defined by the government. It also depends in the region you are in.

The per-capita income of the whole planet is lower than that, even if you account for them at Purchasing Power Parity. By your standard, more than half of all humans in the world are "losers". The reason for that differs from country to country, but it's usually one of two: (1) colonialism, civil war, and cultural impediments have kept whole societies from keeping up with the industrial revolution. That's what happened in most Third-World countries. Alternatively, (2) communism has held back economic development, locking the population of communist countries into poverty.

There is no need to search for character flaws among the people involved.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I equate losers with people with very little money, and "little money" is depended on how much one can buy at any given time. So, I can, without being vague classify people as "losers", because they are below a certain income.

Do you believe everyone is born with ample opportunity to prosper, and those who don't are simply lazy?

I hope not, as that would be incredibly naive.

Well, i am sure there are many unfortunate people in the world, but i am talking only about the situation in America. The working poor here have bad habits. They would invest their money in an iped, than an education.