Why there are so many losers?

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).

Caroline wrote:

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).

There are scholarships, loans, financial aids, and saved money. Whatever you need to get yourself a trade.

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.

Over the course of the study, the average cost for treating a lung cancer patient went up $7,139, to an average of $39,891. With prostate cancer, the average price tag for treatment went up $5,345, to an average of $41,134. The cost of treating breast cancer went up $4,189, to an average cost of $20,964.

I did not say anything about successful people. I was referring to the poor, or people with little money.

You said it is contradiction that i claim "poor people are materialistic". Is is not.

People who are materialistic need to buy stuffs they don`t need, and as a result, they get into debt. That is one reason they are poor.

As for you. You are below the poverty line, but it seems you can go beyond it. What is the reason? You must be ******* lazy.

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) (Yes, that is still correct.)
2. PP--> P
c: PP-> -I ( from 1, and 2).

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.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Caroline wrote:

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).

There are scholarships, loans, financial aids, and saved money. Whatever you need to get yourself a trade.

Scholarships are for the lucky few. I've had a loan and it doesn't go far enough, I had to take two jobs plus a loan with excruciating interest rates, having two jobs and studying full time for a degree, I found really hard, it's a struggle and I had to listen to my mate whining coz daddy couldn't put her through college anymore and had to find a job, ah shame. Saved money, from what? a minimum paid job, (that's all you're gonna get being an uneducated student), I don't think that happens a lot, basically the lucky ones have their parents pay, I'm not saying it's impossible just tougher, and like I said I would like to go back to college but I don't get that luxury because I don't have the money, like I said, it could be said it's designed for the elite.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

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.

First of all, the $250 for an ipod isn't going to buy you much education. It wouldn't even buy the books necessary for some classes.

You are confusing correlation with cause while ignoring other causes.
The largest reason for bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. Are you saying those people are losers? Certainly they don't have enough money to pay for what they need. The average salary in the US is about $50,000.

Quote:

Over the course of the study, the average cost for treating a lung cancer patient went up $7,139, to an average of $39,891. With prostate cancer, the average price tag for treatment went up $5,345, to an average of $41,134. The cost of treating breast cancer went up $4,189, to an average cost of $20,964.

Now before you argue that such people should have insurance, consider how you just argued they should spend all money and time on education.

Caroline wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Caroline wrote:

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).

There are scholarships, loans, financial aids, and saved money. Whatever you need to get yourself a trade.

Scholarships are for the lucky few. I've had a loan and it doesn't go far enough, I had to take two jobs plus a loan with excruciating interest rates, having two jobs and studying full time for a degree, I found really hard, it's a struggle and I had to listen to my mate whining coz daddy couldn't put her through college anymore and had to find a job, ah shame. Saved money, from what? a minimum paid job, (that's all you're gonna get being an uneducated student), I don't think that happens a lot, basically the lucky ones have their parents pay, I'm not saying it's impossible just tougher, and like I said I would like to go back to college but I don't get that luxury because I don't have the money, like I said, it could be said it's designed for the elite.

I suppose you live in england, mate? Do they not have free education there?

If your goal is to improve yourself, then you are to find a way! Research, network, study, and use all that is open to you to achieve your goal.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I did not say anything about successful people. I was referring to the poor, or people with little money.

That's correct, I did.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

You said it is contradiction that i claim "poor people are materialistic". Is is not.

No, I said that poor people aren't necessarily poor because they're materialistic.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

People who are materialistic need to buy stuffs they don`t need, and as a result, they get into debt. That is one reason they are poor.

Yes, it is ONE reason some people are poor. Unfortunately, that's not what you said. You said poor people are poor simply BECAUSE they buy too much. I'm saying that's not always the case.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

As for you. You are below the poverty line, but it seems you can go beyond it. What is the reason? You must be ******* lazy.

Ah nice, your idiocy again shines through. Very nice. Since you ask the question, "What is the reason?" and since it was already given, you get to (again) reassert yourself among the mentally challenged folk who can't read more than 2 lines without it scrambling their info-byte sized mentalities.

I don't see a lot of angry-and-stupid stereotypes in such awesome clarity. Most people fit somewhere in between. Thanks for the example

Cheers

Quote:

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.

You assume there is only one way to get to -P

Let me put your reasoning in true form so you can see how it is logically bankrupt


I = win the lottery

A reasonable premise then is I-> -P

Does that lead to the same conclusions?

Quote:

Proof:

1. P--> -I ( contrapositive) (Yes, that is still correct.)
2. PP--> P
c: PP-> -I ( from 1, and 2).

So, using the same logic as you just used. I have shown that people just need to play the lottery to no longer be poor.

Quote:

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.

That would be enough to establish your logical fallacy...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

Are you kidding me? It is a common empirical fact that college graduates earn more than a non college graduate.

Can I ask you a few personal qualifiers,?
Was the first job you ever got paid a wage for was a job you choose to do?
Or a job you had no choice in doing?
Have you been able to choose what you do for a living?
Also how old were you when you had to start bringing in money so you could eat?
How old were you when you had to start paying rent?
How old were you when you had to buy your own food?
How old were you when you had your first dependant?
How many people have you in your life you had to pay for their food, shelter and clothing for?
Do you have any pets?
How much does a loaf of bread and quart or pint of milk cost in your local supermarket?
On average how many hours of sleep do you get a night?

Thank you and please answer

Look, ******* retard. The point about the i pad is really about focusing once ` s priority to things that are really important, namely, once` s future. It is not about the cost of ipad would give you an education, bitch.

Typically, poor people that do get out of poverty is by mean of a better job, and not winning the lottery.

Education is not required to no longer be poor.
Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant are 2 examples of people that didn't better themselves with education.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Are you kidding me? It is a common empirical fact that college graduates earn more than a non college graduate.

No, I'm not kidding you. And while I grant you that the average college graduate earns more that the average non-college-graduate, not every college-graduate is average. Just as there are non-college-graduates with below-average income, there are college graduates with below-averge income---and some of them will be poor.