Why do we not end poverty? Why the inaction?

[whitetrshsoldier]

Brilliant AND original, nameless!

Give it a shot. I'm sure you'll find success beyond your wildest imagination!! Then ALL the poor people in the world can starve after they've squandered the wealth of the people who once funded the mechanisms that brought them their food!

Take a deep breath, soldier.
Literary device warning!
What brings the poor their food, as well as the rich (and about everything else that the rich enjoy), is by the labors of the poor!

A word of advice ... watch out for that cold steel in your face on the way in the door

Thats what the aristocrats said during the French Revolution.

(A Joke; What do you call a 'poor' or 'middle-class' person that defends the wealthy few?)

Take a second and laugh yourself, nameless!

What's another name for a machine gun, buddy?

100 soldiers for the price of one!!! J/K, but not really! I was just messing around, not serious at all. This whole 'class identification' crap is like trying to identify 'race'.

One of my favorites was an episode of "Chappelle's Show" showing the "Shades of Black". From '50 Cent to Michael Jackson, it was the "Who's Really Black" of "Black Culture". It's not like anybody can really identify an answer - it's a bullsh#t question, just as class is!

The whole debate is ludicrous.

[Dewey]

From whitetrshsoldier:

“And then ALL the poor people in the world can starve after they've squandered the wealth of the people who once funded the mechanisms that brought them their food!”


From nameless:
“What brings the poor their food, as well as the rich (and about everything else that the rich enjoy), is by the labors of the poor!”



From Dewey:

I doubt either of these diametrically opposed claims represent your considered opinions. Both of you surely understand the equal importance in our production systems of capital, including informational capital, and labor.

And I can’t quite believe that either one of you really thinks that the poor inherently lack the necessary intelligence, ambition, and energy to become and stay rich.

It’s all relative. There's no black and white borderline.

[whitetrshsoldier]

And I can’t quite believe that either one of you really thinks that the poor inherently lack the necessary intelligence, ambition, and energy to become and stay rich.

It’s all relative. There's no black and white borderline.

To Scott, I wrote:

And sometimes the rich are undeserving, but their property came from the sweat of somebody's brow, at some point in time. It may be slightly unfair that they received it at birth, but somebody earned it at some point, and it was their decision who to hand it down to.

The 'serf' also has the ability to rise through the ranks. I understand that it does not occur very frequently, but it is possible, and only through innovation and bringing something new and special to the world. If egalitarianism truly existed, why would people innovate? Competition is natural for every living species of animal on this planet; why should we regard it as negative for us?

Dewey,

Thank you, Sir.

I hope you understand that this is all I preach.

[nameless]

Take a second and laugh yourself, nameless!

Takes more time than that! *__-

It's not like anybody can really identify an answer - it's a bullsh#t question, just as class is!

You know if/that you are 'black'.
The 'whites' makes that relatively clear.
You know if/that you are 'poor'.
The 'haves' make that relatively clear.
There are obviously definitions, just no 'universal' definitions.
Nothing exists without definition..

[whitetrshsoldier]

You know if/that you are 'black'.
The 'whites' makes that relatively clear.
You know if/that you are 'poor'.
The 'haves' make that relatively clear.
There are obviously definitions, just no 'universal' definitions.
Nothing exists without definition..

Bah!

No definition exists without a 'definer'.

If a person allows the definition to define them, they have become that 'definer'.

[nameless]

You know if/that you are 'black'.
The 'whites' makes that relatively clear.
You know if/that you are 'poor'.
The 'haves' make that relatively clear.
There are obviously definitions, just no 'universal' definitions.
Nothing exists without definition..

No definition exists without a 'definer'.

Right!
Observer and observed are one.
Definer and defined are one.
Perceiver and perceived are one.

If a person allows the definition to define them, they have become that 'definer'.

We are definers and defined.
We are the sum-total of every Conscious Perspective that has ever beheld us.
Definition/context = existence/the Universe.