College students furious after they’re tricked into rejecting socialist ideal

[Very Tired]

Damn... I thought they were going to go for a anti-diversity/affirmative action spin. Still, it could work either way.

As for the video itself, this probably one of the greatest ways to show hypocrisy on both sides. Kudos to them.

[niil945]

Seeing as the goal of western society has been to better ones offspring..why are these seen as a bad thing to you?

Because we're not living in a world where everyone can actually be the president of their own company. Reality doesn't work that way. We need people working manual labor jobs, customer service jobs, sales jobs, and on and on and on. Those things contribute to a perpetuation of one class of society always lording over the rest. It's not a black and white thing, sure, but there's a point where the people on the bottom of the ladder are being exploited. I see that point as being reached when a job is not providing a livable wage on full time hours personally.

[GodlyBob]

Do you? If a child chooses to work for a parent they are still earning it. The fact they may be unqualified or they sit there and do nothing is immaterial. They, and their parent are smart enough to do it. If no laws are being broken then what is the issue?

Prince William inherits the Queen's fortune. As he should because he earns it. Yes he was lucky to be born into the royal family but he still earns it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your earlier position essentially "people of higher income have all done an appropriately greater amount of work to reach their vantage?" Nepotism suggests the exact opposite, that individual achievement matters less than to whom one was born.

[Torto]

all the conservative mouth breathers in this thread jeez. /wheeeeez " you leebruuls find this argument dumb... /deep inhale hahahahahah!, gotcha!"

oh wow wee I sure feel burned.

You know the op has touched a nerve with the liberals when they fill up the thread with inane comments like this one. Having your hypocrisy laid bare must be painful.

[Sky High]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your earlier position essentially "people of higher income have all done an appropriately greater amount of work to reach their vantage?" Nepotism suggests the exact opposite, that individual achievement matters less than to whom one was born.

nah you see as long as they re the lucky swimmer any and all work they do or don't doesn't matter because people other than them made an effort and since they won the life lottery they can be the most ridiculous representation of the prodigal son and they are still worth more than you ever will! I'm sure if emperor Palpatine was real he'd be slobbering his knob over how much better he is then everyone else. cuz he's rich!

[Torto]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your earlier position essentially "people of higher income have all done an appropriately greater amount of work to reach their vantage?" Nepotism suggests the exact opposite, that individual achievement matters less than to whom one was born.

No, the passing on of wealth to a spouse, sibling or offspring is immaterial to the argument. They earned it and can redistribute it as they see fit. The recipients have received a gift. It's like saying someone shouldn't receive a birthday present because they didn't earn it just by being born.

[Sky High]

You know the op has touched a nerve with the liberals when they fill up the thread with inane comments like this one. Having your hypocrisy laid bare must be painful.

when you guys can come up with an argument that isn't totally retarded maybe you'll get some effort out of me to disprove it, tell then.

also what you take as hypocrisy is really your inability to even understand an argument that runs counter to your precious little ideals.

[Deleted]

You really dont think bettering ones offspring chance at surviving has been a major tenet of western society?

If you're still bent on anthropomorphizing goals and wants onto process, then it's still stupid to ascribe that particular one to only "Western society" (nice American concept by the way), when it could be argued that's a tenet of life itself, really. Complete with some quite gruesome things that really wouldn't go over too well with even the most individualistic bent of morality, what with all that self-sacrifice.

[Saucexorzski]

Because we're not living in a world where everyone can actually be the president of their own company. Reality doesn't work that way. We need people working manual labor jobs, customer service jobs, sales jobs, and on and on and on. Those things contribute to a perpetuation of one class of society always lording over the rest. It's not a black and white thing, sure, but there's a point where the people on the bottom of the ladder are being exploited. I see that point as being reached when a job is not providing a livable wage on full time hours personally.

This line of thought is basically the same as those folks on the top you know, all that is different is the desire to use resources or wealth of another. Thus your find resistances.

[draynay]

Oh those wacky conservatives and their false analogies, what hijinks.

[Saucexorzski]

If you're still bent on anthropomorphizing goals and wants onto process, then it's still stupid to ascribe that particular one to only "Western society" (nice American concept by the way), when it could be argued that's a tenet of life itself, really. Complete with some quite gruesome things that really wouldn't go over too well with even the most individualistic bent of morality, what with all that self-sacrifice.

Well if you want to broaden it to all humanity im fine with that. I was sticking to western society since that is where this event took place.

[GodlyBob]

No, the passing on of wealth to a spouse, sibling or offspring is immaterial to the argument. They earned it and can redistribute it as they see fit. The recipients have received a gift. It's like saying someone shouldn't receive a birthday present because they didn't earn it just by being born.

Can you clarify your position? I'm still a little confused. Did the rich person, and I'll quote you on this one "earn it by being smart" or was a large part of the work involved done by somebody else in the family and reaped by that rich person? I agree that people have the right to acquire wealth and do with it what they like, however in the light of inheritance and nepotism, this right fundamentally undermines the "personal achievement" notion. Being born to a good family and enjoying the benefits thereof is not earning anything.

[Torto]

At this point it's obvious you treat every post like a Rorschach test.

That's why every time I see your posts Nixx I see a butterfly having sex with itself.

[Deleted]

Well if you want to broaden it to all humanity im fine with that. I was sticking to western society since that is where this event took place.

It's a limitation of the concept of the betterment of offspring. I mean, if you're content with your children being able to buy a house with one more room than yours while everywhere else in the world is fire and suffering, it's fine. But there's no point in discussing really. Nepotism is a failure of meritocracy. You know, the whole American dream stuff. Unless you mean the American dream is basically only the beginnings of an executive monarchy of some kind.

[Derpling]

Wow, it's a FWD:FWD:FWD:Re: "Welcome to the Republican party" chain letter in real life. I always like to turn this one around with "Sure, I'd be fine with that, if you take into account that the top students have a 100,000% score. You know, something that makes this resemble actual wealth inequality." For some reason, people never have a counter to that except "nuh uh!"

[Torto]

Can you clarify your position? I'm still a little confused. Did the rich person, and I'll quote you on this one "earn it by being smart" or was a large part of the work involved done by somebody else in the family and reaped by that rich person? I agree that people have the right to acquire wealth and do with it what they like, however in the light of inheritance and nepotism, this right fundamentally undermines the "personal achievement" notion. Being born to a good family and enjoying the benefits thereof is not earning anything.

They earned it by being the child of the wealthy parent. Did they earn it with the sweat off their brow? Not likely but they still earn it by birthright. If the offspring is a lazy moron then they won't have the wealth for long. I'm not sure what point you are driving at here, are you suggesting that any rich parent must donate all their wealth to charity? And be prohibited from employing family members?

[Super Kami Dende]

Socialists have always been the biggest hypocrites I've ever dealt with.

It's not surprising it was so easy for these people to show it.

[niil945]

Thats funny because I find your inability to explain it differently quite laughable.

Really? That's all you have as a response? Hit up google. Type in affirmative action. I don't need to explain why what you wrote isn't a valid summary of the definition. The definition, application, and moral justification for such policies are common knowledge and clearly defined and they doesn't match what you wrote. Your explanation was simply partisan text diarrhea. And I don't even like the application of affirmative action today in many cases. I tend to be of the philosophy that people should be judged based upon their own accomplishments and skills, at the same time I can understand why it used to be necessary and in some cases still is.

[Saucexorzski]

It's a limitation of the concept of the betterment of offspring. I mean, if you're content with your children being able to buy a house with one more room than yours while everywhere else in the world is fire and suffering, it's fine. But there's no point in discussing really. Nepotism is a failure of meritocracy. You know, the whole American dream stuff. Unless you mean the American dream is basically only the beginnings of an executive monarchy of some kind.

Nepotism and inheritance are not only done by the rich. Even the poor pass on their belongings, even the poor will try to help their offspring in the available avenues they have. Would a poor person if rich not seek to give as much to their children? not help them succeed? I doubt it.

[GodlyBob]

They earned it by being the child of the wealthy parent. Did they earn it with the sweat off their brow? Not likely but they still earn it by birthright. If the offspring is a lazy moron then they won't have the wealth for long. I'm not sure what point you are driving at here, are you suggesting that any rich parent must donate all their wealth to charity? And be prohibited from employing family members?

No, I never did. I just don't know by what metric they "earned" anything. Earning something implies that the individual personally worked for it. Saying that you deserve something based solely on who or where you were born is blatant entitlement, undemocratic, and the antithesis of meritocracy. I agree that people that work harder and work smarter deserve to be rewarded. However, you're argueing for a caste system rather than a meritocracy...which is bad.