Why there are so many losers?

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
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.

Is that a fact? If you think so, what is your evidence for that fact?

Suppose it is not the case. That the working poor had invested their time, and money into a better career, by investing in education, studying and other activities. Why would they not succeed? If there is no reason, then this must imply that they must not invest wisely on their future. They must of wasted their money, or got themselves into debt on the unnecessary material things.

3 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

I'd say a systemic effort by higher social classes to prevent competition from low social classes.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

If there is no reason, then this must imply that they must not invest wisely on their future.

No, it need not imply that. This link in your syllogism is broaken. Just because because bad choices are the only reason you can think of why people why end up poor, that doesn't mean they must actually be the reason. Even if I couldn't of any other reason, your conclusion would not follow.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
If there is no reason, then this must imply that they must not invest wisely on their future.

No, it need not imply that. This link in your syllogism is broaken. Just because because bad choices are the only reason you can think of why people why end up poor, that doesn't mean they must actually be the reason. Even if I couldn't of any other reason, your conclusion would not follow.

Don` t follow? Are you kidding me?

Let:

PP = poor people.
P= remain poor.
I= invest in the future, save money etc.

A resonable premise is: I-> -P
Another resonable premise is PP-> P
I want to show PP-> -I.

Proof:

1. P--> -I ( contrapositive)
2. PP--> P
c: PP-> -I ( from 1, and 2).

I don` t know how much logic you know. This might be too technical for you.
The point is that if 1, and 2 are true, then c necessary follow, since the argument if valid. Both 1, and 2 are reasonable assumptions.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I don` t know how much logic you know.

I don't know how much logic you know either. Just because you're slinging around formal logical symbols, that doesn't mean you're making a logically coherent argument. Specifically, your "proof" assumes that what you're calling a "reasonable premise" is actually true. I'll roll with your premise's purported reasonableness for the sake of the argument. But even so, you can't just assume that "reasonable" implies "true": Some premises are reasonable, but false.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
I don` t know how much logic you know.

I don't know how much logic you know either. Just because you're slinging around formal logical symbols, that doesn't mean you're making a logically coherent argument. Specifically, your "proof" assumes that what you're calling a "reasonable premise" is actually true. I'll roll with your premise's purported reasonableness for the sake of the argument. But even so, you can't just assume that "reasonable" implies "true": Some premises are reasonable, but false.

Let ` s be specific. I don ` t like to play unnecessary games with you. Since we know PP->-I necessary following from the two previous premise. We just need to focus on the two premise!

PP->P is pretty reasonable, and generally true. It is an empirical fact that generally PP->P. Some PP must be -P, but we are talking in generality. I am give you data, and statistics that poor people remain poor.

I->-P is also reasonable. Investing you money in an education, getting a good job, and get yourself out of poverty. It is generally true. I can also give you statistics that people with higher education in general earn more.

I can provide date for both premises.

Quote:

Just because you're slinging around formal logical symbols, that doesn't mean you're making a logically coherent argument.

You must be a ******* moron. A "logically argument" is a valid argument. A sound argument is such that the premises of the valid argument is all true.
By saying " slinging around formal logical symbol", it shows me you are a ******* moron.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I->-P is also reasonable.

But "reasonable" is not the same as true. To establish that it's true, or even come close to it, you'll need to provide empirical evidence that poor people who invest in education do not stay poor poor, and that non-poor people who invest in education do not become poor. The mere fact that a proposition sounds reasonable to you doesn't establish its truth.

1 Reply

Some one may have already said it but;
Why there are so many losers?
Because the "winners" tend to take more of the share and leave less for the left behind majority.

The winner is rewarded but all rewards come at the cost of someone/thing else.

No prize seems to be free of cost other than for the winner being free to take the larger share and not have to pay the same toll as everyone else.

A reward always leaves behind a debt.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
I->-P is also reasonable.

But "reasonable" is not the same as true. To establish that it's true, or even come close to it, you'll need to provide empirical evidence that poor people who invest in education do not stay poor poor, and that non-poor people who invest in education do not become poor. The mere fact that a proposition sounds reasonable to you doesn't establish its truth.

Are you kidding me? It is a common empirical fact that college graduates earn more than a non college graduate. This is enough to establish I-> -P. Do you still not see the connection? There are obvious some college graduates that actually become more poor before they go to college, but we are talking about what is the case in "general". I->-P applies only to " poor people", but the empirical fact that "college grad" earn more applies to "all people". Whatever generalization that applies to "all people" applies to a "subset of the people"( ie, poor people, PP).

3 Replies

@sometime sun,

sometime sun wrote:

Some one may have already said it but;
Why there are so many losers?
Because the "winners" tend to take more of the share and leave less for the left behind majority.

The winner is rewarded but all rewards come at the cost of someone/thing else.

No prize seems to be free of cost other than for the winner being free to take the larger share and not have to pay the same toll as everyone else.

A reward always leaves behind a debt.

No. Most people can be above the poverty line. They might not be the richest, but they are still survival, and have a decent standard of living.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

No. Most people can be above the poverty line. They might not be the richest, but they are still survival, and have a decent standard of living.

I am not sure of my or your facts here so have no proof yet why I think this, but this statement of yours seems totally wrong to me, sorry that I cant do any better than say this "feels" wrong.
Apart from the survival bit I would ask you show me your reasons or proof "most people can be above the poverty line" and ask you to describe what "decent standard of living" is?
For although I think I see that there are possibly less poverty stricken people than not the really stricken, I would still like to see the projections if you have any.

Thank you.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Whatever generalization that applies to "all people" applies to a "subset of the people"( ie, poor people, PP).

Wealthy people (WP) are a subset, but you seem to want them off limits in this discussion.

Explain how your theory accounts for WP not becoming P when they make -I.

Your theory might be worth consideration if people started out on level footing. They don't.

A
R
T

1 Reply

Don't often see this sort of vitriol from someone who has suffered poverty.

0 Replies

@sometime sun,

sometime sun wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

No. Most people can be above the poverty line. They might not be the richest, but they are still survival, and have a decent standard of living.

I am not sure of my or your facts here so have no proof yet why I think this, but this statement of yours seems totally wrong to me, sorry that I cant do any better than say this "feels" wrong.
Apart from the survival bit I would ask you show me your reasons or proof "most people can be above the poverty line" and ask you to describe what "decent standard of living" is?
For although I think I see that there are possibly less poverty stricken people than not the really stricken, I would still like to see the projections if you have any.

Thank you.

What is your question?

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
Whatever generalization that applies to "all people" applies to a "subset of the people"( ie, poor people, PP).

Wealthy people (WP) are a subset, but you seem to want them off limits in this discussion.

Explain how your theory accounts for WP not becoming P when they make -I.

Your theory might be worth consideration if people started out on level footing. They don't.

A
R
T

P means "remaining poor", and not "poor". Also, the "theory" is not clear in this context. So what about WP? If you follow the discussion, i only wanted to show I-->-P from the statistic about "college grad earning more". This premise combined with PP-> P, result in PP-> -I which is what i wanted to show to the other guy. The statistic that all people, also apply to PP, and thus, justifies PP-> -I. It also also apply to WP, but it is not relevant to the argument which only involve PP, and not relevant to the conclusion PP->-I.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

No. Most people can be above the poverty line. They might not be the richest, but they are still survival, and have a decent standard of living.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What is your question?

My answer;
I don't believe you, I don't exactly know why I don't, but I don't believe you.
Please try and prove or define what you have just said so I can believe you.

Simply;
What do you mean?
and or
Prove it.

1 Reply

@sometime sun,

sometime sun wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

No. Most people can be above the poverty line. They might not be the richest, but they are still survival, and have a decent standard of living.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What is your question?

My answer;
I don't believe you, I don't exactly know why I don't, but I don't believe you.
Please try and prove or define what you have just said so I can believe you.

Simply;
What do you mean?
and
Prove it.

look, crazy idiot. What is your question?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

No. Most people can be above the poverty line. They might not be the richest, but they are still survival, and have a decent standard of living.

Last chance;
What does this statement mean?
Where is your statements proof?
How can you back this statement up?
Where does this statement come from?
How did you come to accept/agree with this statement?
How would you show me how to accept/agree with this statement?
If you have anything further to add to this please show me it because this is not enough for me.
Your statement is not enough for me, I need more from you.

1 Reply

@sometime sun,

sometime sun wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

No. Most people can be above the poverty line. They might not be the richest, but they are still survival, and have a decent standard of living.

Last chance;
What does this statement mean?
Where is your statements proof?
How can you back this statement up?
Where does this statement come from?
How did you come to accept/agree with this statement?
How would you show me how to accept/agree with this statement?
If you have anything further to add to this please show me it because this is not enough for me.
Your statement is not enough for me, I need more from you.

It means what it saids. Many poor people can go above the poverty line by going to college, finding a better job, save money, and live within their means.
What is the evidence? One nice piece of evidence is a study done that shows that college grad on average can earn more money than a non-college grad.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

But not everybody is rich enough to go to uni, it could be said it's only for the elite. For instance if I had the money I would go back to uni but I dont so I cant, (I had to leave through no fault of my own).

1 Reply

Why there are so many losers?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know