Im watching cop interaction videos and one thing i heard a few cops say now to people who refused to answer questions or give them a hard time.. they ask "Why do you hate cops so much?".... no no no buddy, these people dont hate you, they are **scared** of you, big difference. People just dont tend to like people they are scared of, but that is secondary!

@freemo Kinda scary how you consider me wrong on so many things, then you say such simple, yet useful truth. Reality is confusing, don't you agree?

@admitsWrongIfProven you are probably just noticing i am more direct about things i disagree. It isnt that i find you more wrong than anyone else might. Im just more likely to tell you.

@freemo That is a good point, another one for the wonder i have.

I generally see you as someone who wants to be kind, but i also see the "people should work for their keep", which i cannot reconcile with the rest.

After all, i am convinced people generally want to be useful. So pushing is not the direction that would help.

Some disconnect exists, and i cannot put my finger on what it is.

@admitsWrongIfProven No I dont think people should work for their keep. I can think of plenty of examples (like inheretance) where they don't and I'm ok with it.

What I think is that people shouldnt be forced to let you steal from them so they dont have to work for their keep (communism for exmaple)

@freemo Wait, stealing by random luck is good? I need a new random luck generator installed.

@admitsWrongIfProven Inheretance isnt stealing, the person wanted you to have it. Taxes are stealing in the sense that you are taking money against someones will to get it to someoneone else.

That said I''m actually not against taxes, but only when it benefits the greater good (and base line welfare that keeps people froms starving does that)

@freemo You are aware that you favour the status quo over individual achievement?

@admitsWrongIfProven thats seem in-congruent. thats like saying "you know you favor this current color of carpet over women's rights".

You may be better served making your point with an example

@freemo If i am born with nothing, poor parents, i starve save for strong social services.

Why would an individual that is so lucky to be born to rich parents get more?

In the example, the child is too young to achieve anything, so inheritance is not consistent with achievement. What is your stance on achievement relevance?

@admitsWrongIfProven Why shouldnt they? They werent lucky, their parents worked hard. They also couldnt have been born to any other person, if they were they wouldnt have been them. So its not lucky since you can only be born to exactly who you are born to.

@freemo I do not understand. Why are babies born to rich parents not lucky?

How would you determine who worked hard? Hard work is no realistic indicator for success. Randomness is involved.

What are you trying to say?

@admitsWrongIfProven Luck implies there is some element of chance,there isnt. You can only be born to one specific mother, you can never be born to any other mother through an act of chance (short of a few really weird obscure edge cases).

How can something that has no random element to it be luck?

> How would you determine who worked hard? Hard work is no realistic indicator for success. Randomness is involved.

It is of course possible they themselves didnt work hard for it, it very well may be someone else who worked hard who gave it to them somehow... who knows. Point is it wasnt random.

@freemo So you are saying what happens happens. No benefit in thinking about it. I am born to this mother, and father, and that is it.

Following that train of thought, i think this would have solved our problems, humanity-wide, long ago.

If i am born to little chances at success, why do anything. Why struggle, when life is like it is?

I do agree, if life is shitty, it would be better not to try. Just stay in bed, or the mud hole i was born in. Let it go.

Complete agree. No energy to invest, let it go!

@admitsWrongIfProven

> So you are saying what happens happens. No benefit in thinking about it. I am born to this mother, and father, and that is it.

Not saying that at all. By all means thing about what happens. Obviously you cant change (nor was there any random element of chance) determining who you were born to. But you can certainly think and talk about it and what that means.

> If i am born to little chances at success,

You mean like me? I was born to abject poverty and grew up in it my whole life on welfare.

> why do anything. Why struggle, when life is like it is?

Born to little chances.. have to understnad what that means.. it means the average person will have little chance. It does not mean you have little chance. The chance you have to survive will be determined far more by the choices you make, than the choices thrust on you.

Despite growing up with "little chances" it was quite trivial for me to become successful as early as the age of 15.

I've lived this and already proven its not just possible, its easy.

@freemo >Despite growing up with “little chances” it was quite trivial for me to become successful as early as the age of 15.

I’ve lived this and already proven its not just possible, its easy.

So what are you trying to say here? Because you made it despite the odds, others have to make it, too?

Aside those that inherit, it seems.

You tout that inheritance was ok, but you give absolutely no explanation on why.

Born to that mother, nothing to do. Oh, the random mother was a rich one, good. that is great. But if people born to poor mothers are salty, they have no right.

Why?

@admitsWrongIfProven

> So what are you trying to say here? Because you made it despite the odds, others have to make it, too?

There you go making things random that arent random... What random generator are you talking about and when is the randomness injected into the system? It sounds like you are using "random" as an incorrect fillin for "complex". This are complex, but far from random.

What i am trying to say is that an individual success is largely determined by them and their actions. I am saying the reason it was so easy to me had no elements of randomness to it, it was the result of my choices. Other people should make the right choices, and we should help them do it. Telling them their spot in life is due to random choices and rhetoric about "why should they even try" is not helping them, it is why they are in the situation they are in in many cases.

> Aside those that inherit, it seems.

Nah people who inheret arent the exception. If they have the same mentality as the people who stay in poverty they will loose their inheritance in no time and be in poverty.

> You tout that inheritance was ok, but you give absolutely no explanation on why.

Something being OK is the default. I dont need to prove why its ok that the sun rises at a certain time or why a leaf happaned to be in the middle of the rode... I have no need to explain why its ok because its ok simply because you have put forward no argument as to why it shouldnt be ok

> Born to that mother, nothing to do. Oh, the random mother was a rich one, good. that is great. But if people born to poor mothers are salty, they have no right.

Why do you keep saying words like "random" even after that has been debunked. You know saying the same thing that is shown to be false over and over wont make it true. Ir will weaken your argument though.

> Why?

Your statement used previously debunked falsehoods like "random". I cant answer a question about a statement if the statement uses nonsensical words in the context.

@freemo >What i am trying to say is that an individual success is largely determined by them and their actions

I see no proof of that, not even a hint.

> Nah people who inheret arent the exception

So some, but not all? I wonder if you want all humans to live well or just some.

Sleepytime now. Confused on how you mean to argue inheritance, i have not seen one reason why people that get one should, but others not. Sleep well.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> I see no proof of that, not even a hint.

This is a discussion of opinions, and our reasoning. This is not a formal scientific publication. I explained my opinions and reasoning.

As for the hint, yes that you got. Specifically I gave an example, that would qualify as "more than a hint". I could provide more examples to backup what i said as needed.

> So some, but not all? I wonder if you want all humans to live well or just some.

Yes only some rich people who inhereit, the ones who have the same mentality as your average poor person, will loose all their money. On the flip side only some of poor people will also be able to become rich on their own, and those are the people who have the same sort of mentality as the people in inherit their money and manage to keep it or grow it.

> Sleepytime now. Confused on how you mean to argue inheritance, i have not seen one reason why people that get one should, but others not. Sleep well.

Thats easy... they should get it because someone wanted to give something to them, and it was their propery.

@freemo Well, yes, it is not a formal scientific thing. Seems it would be necessary to go deeper to capture the advantages and disadvantages of the status quo (as inheritance exists to a very large degree). I'll let you know when i have further thoughts.

@admitsWrongIfProven I certainly dont doubt that inheritance exists... but you seem to have this idea that the natural laws of the world should either be fair, or government should make them fair... I disagree, and thus why all of your arguments, usually rooted in that concept, also wont land with me.

@admitsWrongIfProven or to be more specific equal, as in, you seem to abhor any random aspect of success. An idea that effort, regardless of how poorly it is applied, should result in equal success regardless.

@freemo I do not abhor any aspect of success - i merely wish for a good baseline standard of life that is guaranteed regardless of success. Which is a completely different concept. I mean to lessen extremes, not get rid of differentiation.

If everyone had exactly the same regardless of what they do, that would be as catastrophic mid-long term as if one person had everything and everyone else nothing.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> I do not abhor any aspect of success - i merely wish for a good baseline standard of life that is guaranteed regardless of success. Which is a completely different concept. I mean to lessen extremes, not get rid of differentiation.

No one, especially me, is saying you dont have good intent. The issue is the horrible ideas you think get you there. But thats ok, there are lots of horrible ideas floating around to address issues that would actually make the problem worse (despite the opposite)

> If everyone had exactly the same regardless of what they do, that would be as catastrophic mid-long term as if one person had everything and everyone else nothing.

Thats not how I described your stance. You have often argued that people should not be able to have success as the result of "randomness", and you have also argued people should not make more money when they put int he same amount of time and effort for a task. All of that comes froma sense of equality, but as I've said many times simply making an effort is not what is paid for, the value of that effort (Which is partly a factor of skill) is what determines your pay, and should.

@freemo > The issue is the horrible ideas you think get you there.

I am curious as to what you think those are. I don't remember uttering any concrete steps of action in the near past.

> You have often argued that people should not be able to have success as the result of “randomness”

To clarify: i am aware that randomness is a part of every success, by the very nature of our reality. I merely wish that returns would not snowball limitlessly, as humans are not good at determining a reasonable "enough".

> the value of that effort (Which is partly a factor of skill) is what determines your pay, and should

I agree, though still bounded.
In everyday conditions, working any job that depends on individual skill and available material, that should be fine. I sense problems when a success is an amalgamation of multiple peoples work, as correct attribution is not a base feature of reality but something that has to be done on top. Example would be the slums of workers commonly found in front of amazon warehouses. They do have the skill to do what is needed (as they are not fired), yet do not earn enough to live a dignified life. It follows for me that attribution of skill contribution went wrong.

To note, in that last example i did not propose concrete steps to take, i merely pointed out what i find problematic.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> I am curious as to what you think those are. I don’t remember uttering any concrete steps of action in the near past.

I am not talking about any specific recent past suggestions. As you pointed out we often disagree, this is what we disagree on, not intent, but rather your interpritation of potential solutioins

> To clarify: i am aware that randomness is a part of every success, by the very nature of our reality. I merely wish that returns would not snowball limitlessly, as humans are not good at determining a reasonable “enough”.

If that is the case your argument was poorly framed, since you were arguing about why should someone have success by luck of birth. In reality luck of birth then isnt the issue at all, your issue is that having money makes it easier to make money than not having money (in terms of percentage not absolute return)... thats the snowball effect.. and THAT actually would have been a valid argument in my eyes.

> I agree, though still bounded.

I see no need for bounds. There is nothing that needs correcting just because a persons skills are extraordinarily valuable.

@freemo > If that is the case your argument was poorly framed

Since a big part of why i discuss is to learn, i declare this a success then. Thank you for indulging me to the point we cleared it up.

@admitsWrongIfProven Yea I agree, if it helped you make better logical arguments (even if your stance hasnt changed but you argue it more logically) then I too consider that a success.

@freemo Now what i still wonder about is if you consider correct attribution of contributions to creating value fundamental or not.

@admitsWrongIfProven "fundemental" in what sense? and what is the nature of the contribution? I mean if your asking if there always needs to be attribution, what if i pay you specifically for your silence (not to tell others you contributed)?