Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wikipedia

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 12:12:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
DISCLAIMER: I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS MAY NOT BE THE FIRST WIKIPEDIA THREAD ON DEBATE.ORG. I ACCEPT AND CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL INCOMPETENCE AND MORAL CULPABILITY FOR CREATING DUPLICATE THREADS BECAUSE I AM TOO LAZY AND INSUBORDINATE TO LOOK THROUGH AND FIND IT. BEFORE READING BELOW, YOU MUST AGREE NOT TO COMPLAIN.

1. If click "I agree" then CONTINUE
2. If click "I do not agree" then SAY "{[Go F*ck Yourself]}"
3. PROMPT "Hit any key to continue..."

Wikipedia could be becoming the most powerful body of knowledge in the universe. It is like an artificial intelligence growing as we continue to organize and feed it. Wikipedia appears to me now as the internet itself appeared to be in the mid nineties: an awkward, fledgling entity that was interesting because it broke conventional ways of thinking (i.e, www.wimp.com/todayshow/ ). Wikipedia is still small and awkward; it isn't cite-worthy in most cases and the way it is organized will be revolutionized within the next decade, I would predict.

I wanted to call attention to the fact that most of us don't concern ourselves about how our knowledge is organized. You all should know better than anyone that finding a good article to back up your point is difficult and awkward because you have to use multiple databases in conjunction with google, or else claw through old books like some caveman. Information is readily available, but readily available isn't enough - it needs to be well-organized as well.

Right now IP keeps databases under lock and key unless you get access. I used to use LexisNexis, for example, during my ConLaw class and I remember it being absolutely perplexing as to how to find things. I ended up having to call in and talk to some strange individual who was very interested in why I was seeking to use the site and then gave me an outside link that granted me access. I get access to JSTOR and the like through my university, but I don't think alumni get access for very long after graduation. Also, many pieces of work are only available in physical form. This requires time. Americans are flat-broke in the commodity of time, whether you are a successful person who is working overtime to succeed or an unsuccessful person who is working extra jobs to stay alive. Furthermore there are certain disciplines, policymaking for example, that are time-sensitive and not meant to be slowly researched.

What can we do to strengthen Wikipedia? How can we bring all the databases together and make them as easily accessible as possible? How can we make sure that the poorest people among us have free and liesurely access to all the knowledge they could possibly want?

Liberal answer - set up government programs and funding.
Conservative answer - scale back government, reduce spending and lower taxes. Let the private sector prosper and develop it.
Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.
Huggists - Make everything free! Most of the problem with information is power struggles - so let's minimize the struggles. And instead use huggles.
no comment
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.
no comment
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 2:18:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.

Got sources for that?
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 2:18:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.

Got sources for that?

No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO? Common sense dictates that most poor people are not in the position to become successful.
no comment
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 7:05:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.

Yeah, because, libertarians totally support drug laws, IP laws, and all manner of regulations.

This is the part where I say "capitalism is just a dirty word for you. You take everything that's wrong with the world, call it capitalism, and then fap to how bad it is." Then you ignore me.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 7:34:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:18:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.

Got sources for that?

No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO?
Common sense dictates that most poor people are not in the position to become successful.

J.K Rowling, and Oprah Winfrey were in poverty before they became billionaires.
If these examples are not enough
Also:
http://www.heritage.org...

Why can't a janitor become a CEO? If he or she gets an education, works up the ladder or starts his or her business, why not?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 7:42:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 7:34:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:18:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.

Got sources for that?

No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO?
Common sense dictates that most poor people are not in the position to become successful.


J.K Rowling, and Oprah Winfrey were in poverty before they became billionaires.
If these examples are not enough
Also:
http://www.heritage.org...

Why can't a janitor become a CEO? If he or she gets an education, works up the ladder or starts his or her business, why not?

Ah! So, the missing link is EDUCATION. I agree. Knowledge is power, always has been.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 1:28:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol and libertarians think there should be no public schools hmmm
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:37:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like wikipedia. I'm also trying to get last post in every forum, so humour me this obvious +1 post.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 6:01:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 1:28:03 AM, belle wrote:

lol and libertarians think there should be no public schools hmm....

Public schools are expensive for the taxpayer, and very little 'learning' occurs in these institutes. Teacher unions and regulations have jacked up the cost to 'educate' someone. Really, all you really need for an education are books, lecture videos, and software programs. The traditional schooling method is not only expensive, its inefficient.

While some believe that public schools gives others equal oppurtunity it doesn't.
It's no secret that 'good' public schools exisit in wealthy towns, while bad public schools exisit in poorer areas.

As a final note, if it is true that an education can raise one out of poverty, why not take out a loan? The future earnings one recieves from an education will more then offset the cost of education and loan interest.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 6:08:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lolwut? A thread about wikipedia has turned into a thread about capitalism. Also, Caramel, in some cases poor people are able to become successful. Maybe not all, but as was previously pointed out some have.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 6:20:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 6:08:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
lolwut? A thread about wikipedia has turned into a thread about capitalism. Also, Caramel, in some cases poor people are able to become successful. Maybe not all, but as was previously pointed out some have.

If you make a claim like th following
Caramel wrote:
Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.

You bet you @ss that someone's going to call you out on that bullsh!t.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:14:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 7:05:43 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.

Yeah, because, libertarians totally support drug laws, IP laws, and all manner of regulations.

This is the part where I say "capitalism is just a dirty word for you. You take everything that's wrong with the world, call it capitalism, and then fap to how bad it is." Then you ignore me.

Capitalism is ingrained in every element of society - it's effects are ubiquitous. So... yeah.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:41:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 7:34:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:18:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/25/2011 2:15:30 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/25/2011 12:20:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.


How are the poor owned indirectly owned by the rich? There is class mobility and people are free to do actions that suit fit for them.

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. What's the likelihood of class mobility in a strict caste system? It's not zero percent, it's probably something like 0.01% (wild guess). What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent. The very existence of class negates class mobility because there is always an overwhlemingly strong chance of being in the lower classes (and being constrained while you are there).

People are not free to "do actions that suit fit for them." IP, drug laws, and all types of rules and regulations prevent that. It's illegal for my cat to exit my house. Clearly, there is much we are physically prevented from doing. And Wikipedia is a good example of something we are being restricted out of. Wiki should be much larger and more intricate than it currently is, given our technology.

Got sources for that?

No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO?
Common sense dictates that most poor people are not in the position to become successful.


J.K Rowling, and Oprah Winfrey were in poverty before they became billionaires.
If these examples are not enough
Also:
http://www.heritage.org...

Well farbeit for me to criticize a reputable and impartial organization like the Heritage Foundation who would never dream of putting personal agenda above truthfulness. Here's a peer-reviewed article discussing race and mobility: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy.uwgb.edu...

And this article outlines income disparity in general: http://www.annualreviews.org.ezproxy.uwgb.edu...

"Among the rich OECD countries, the United States features the highest level of income inequality and, together with the UK, has experienced the sharpest growth in disparities over the past quarter century (Kenworthy 2004, Smeeding 2005)."

If income disparity is itself increasing, does it matter who is actually at the bottom? The Heritage Foundation may be finding lots of shuffling going on with who has money but again that is simply nonsensical. If you go to the ghetto, you can be pretty certain that most if not all the people you see are going to stay low class for life. Similarly, if you were to attend some celebrity or high-class outing, you're not likely to see anyone there who is going to fall through the ranks down to McDonald's Burger flipper. The Heritage Foundation, in a predictable attempt to play with the numbers, is probably just using metrics to make it look like people are being shuffled all around - for instance, putting a line in the sand at a certain income level and then counting people who cross it but make no real significant change in status. Statistics can be manipulated to say anything.

Why can't a janitor become a CEO? If he or she gets an education, works up the ladder or starts his or her business, why not?

OK my point was not based on the fact that it is impossible, only unlikely. You can show me dozens of pictures of four-leafed clovers but that doesn't mean I'll go out in a cloverpatch and start turning them up.
kfc
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 12:08:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 11:41:03 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

Well farbeit for me to criticize a reputable and impartial organization like the Heritage Foundation who would never dream of putting personal agenda above truthfulness. Here's a peer-reviewed article discussing race and mobility: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy.uwgb.edu...


It's a conservative think tank. So what? It's very unlikely that they will fake of smudge data to support their position. Did you find anything wrong with the data, or do you want to continue more ad hominem attacks.

And this article outlines income disparity in general: http://www.annualreviews.org.ezproxy.uwgb.edu...

"Among the rich OECD countries, the United States features the highest level of income inequality and, together with the UK, has experienced the sharpest growth in disparities over the past quarter century (Kenworthy 2004, Smeeding 2005)."


I honestly would like to read those articles however I couldn't get access to them :(

If income disparity is itself increasing, does it matter who is actually at the bottom? The Heritage Foundation may be finding lots of shuffling going on with who has money but again that is simply nonsensical. If you go to the ghetto, you can be pretty certain that most if not all the people you see are going to stay low class for life. Similarly, if you were to attend some celebrity or high-class outing, you're not likely to see anyone there who is going to fall through the ranks down to McDonald's Burger flipper. The Heritage Foundation, in a predictable attempt to play with the numbers, is probably just using metrics to make it look like people are being shuffled all around - for instance, putting a line in the sand at a certain income level and then counting people who cross it but make no real significant change in status. Statistics can be manipulated to say anything.


Oh thank you so much. Your anecdotal evidence is much more convincing then the scientific data I found that proved you wrong.

Seriously, If you can come up with scientific data that actually disputes mine, then I'd be interested to take another look and truly see if social mobility is a likely possibility in society. However, you keep on relying on your own prejudices.

Why can't a janitor become a CEO? If he or she gets an education, works up the ladder or starts his or her business, why not?

OK my point was not based on the fact that it is impossible, only unlikely. You can show me dozens of pictures of four-leafed clovers but that doesn't mean I'll go out in a cloverpatch and start turning them up.

Agreed, we need concrete data. I couldn't access your links.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 12:14:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
More data from wikipedia:

Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

That sounds like economic mobility to me.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 12:14:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO?

College, Entrepreneurship, etc.

A janitor invents a new useful widget, people buy widget and janitor quits job to organize and successfully run a company. Boom CEO out of janitor in a years time.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 12:19:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 12:14:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
More data from wikipedia:

Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

That sounds like economic mobility to me.

Oh yea caramel (rob2billoin), whoever your calling yourself now, that isn't less than 1% like your numbers predicted.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 12:21:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 12:08:18 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/27/2011 11:41:03 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

Well farbeit for me to criticize a reputable and impartial organization like the Heritage Foundation who would never dream of putting personal agenda above truthfulness. Here's a peer-reviewed article discussing race and mobility: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy.uwgb.edu...


It's a conservative think tank. So what? It's very unlikely that they will fake of smudge data to support their position. Did you find anything wrong with the data, or do you want to continue more ad hominem attacks.

The Heritage Foundation is notorious for bias.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 12:23:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 12:21:19 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/28/2011 12:08:18 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/27/2011 11:41:03 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

Well farbeit for me to criticize a reputable and impartial organization like the Heritage Foundation who would never dream of putting personal agenda above truthfulness. Here's a peer-reviewed article discussing race and mobility: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy.uwgb.edu...


It's a conservative think tank. So what? It's very unlikely that they will fake of smudge data to support their position. Did you find anything wrong with the data, or do you want to continue more ad hominem attacks.

The Heritage Foundation is notorious for bias.

Fair enough, see my above data from wikipedia that should be more accurate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 12:33:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 6:08:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
lolwut? A thread about wikipedia has turned into a thread about capitalism. Also, Caramel, in some cases poor people are able to become successful. Maybe not all, but as was previously pointed out some have.

Again, just some is not what we should be aiming for.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 1:02:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 12:14:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
More data from wikipedia:

Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

Your numbers clearly show that 84% of poor children will not escape the bottom three quintiles- it would be logical to deduce that the curve would leave most of the remaining sixteen percent in the fourth- how many percent reach the top? One? Rags to riches... would you bank on those odds? Oprah did it, but that is rare.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 1:08:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 12:14:55 AM, askbob wrote:
At 2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO?

College, Entrepreneurship, etc.

A janitor invents a new useful widget, people buy widget and janitor quits job to organize and successfully run a company. Boom CEO out of janitor in a years time.

% janitors to CEOs= your avatar's chance of getting a job as a school teacher.
kfc
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 1:15:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 1:08:33 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 2/28/2011 12:14:55 AM, askbob wrote:
At 2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO?

College, Entrepreneurship, etc.

A janitor invents a new useful widget, people buy widget and janitor quits job to organize and successfully run a company. Boom CEO out of janitor in a years time.

% janitors to CEOs= your avatar's chance of getting a job as a school teacher.

I lol'ed. xD
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 1:17:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 1:02:09 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 2/28/2011 12:14:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
More data from wikipedia:

Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

Your numbers clearly show that 84% of poor children will not escape the bottom three quintiles- it would be logical to deduce that the curve would leave most of the remaining sixteen percent in the fourth- how many percent reach the top? One? Rags to riches... would you bank on those odds? Oprah did it, but that is rare.

The third quantile is middle class, nowhere near the bottom. And 58% of the poor class increase their level of prosperity. The numbers speak for themselves that class mobility exists so there's no real argument anymore. Your theory that is virtually impossible to escape one's class just got annihilated. So please retract the following statements:

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero. and
What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent.
and
Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 8:28:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 1:17:04 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/28/2011 1:02:09 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 2/28/2011 12:14:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
More data from wikipedia:

Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

Your numbers clearly show that 84% of poor children will not escape the bottom three quintiles- it would be logical to deduce that the curve would leave most of the remaining sixteen percent in the fourth- how many percent reach the top? One? Rags to riches... would you bank on those odds? Oprah did it, but that is rare.

The third quantile is middle class, nowhere near the bottom. And 58% of the poor class increase their level of prosperity. The numbers speak for themselves that class mobility exists so there's no real argument anymore. Your theory that is virtually impossible to escape one's class just got annihilated. So please retract the following statements:

Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of it happening is close enough to zero.

It is clumsily worded... How about this: 'Class mobility is irrelevant when the likelihood of someone from the lowest class reaching the highest class is close enough to zero.' Through my entire life, I have never heard of splitting society into 5 "quintiles." The obvious reason that they are splitting it up into 5 instead of the usual 3 is that the more divisions you make the easier it is for someone to cross them. But for someone in poverty to climb the ladder to the top is extremely unlikely. There's a reason why Oprah is enigmatic - it was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO unlikely of her story becoming realized.

and
What's the likelihood of class mobility in America? It's still probably less than one percent.

Changed to: "What's the likelihood of drastic class mobility in America? It's probably <1%."

Libertarian answer - let the poor be indirectly owned by the rich and call it self-ownership.

This is just theoretical rhetoric. I don't think any other libertarians are losing sleep over this comment, especially coming from me. If you want to argue it, we will argue it. It has been my experience that land-owners often treat their employees like possessions. You can say the janitor owns himself because he can quit and go mop floors for another company, but the limited opportunity to choose his ideal workplace means that the leverage is working against him. He will have to submit to the rules, petty as they may be, that are imposed on him from the top and he will be virtually powerless to do anything about it.
kfc
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 8:31:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 1:08:33 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 2/28/2011 12:14:55 AM, askbob wrote:
At 2/25/2011 6:48:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
No. Got sources to say that janitors have a great chance of working up to CEO?

College, Entrepreneurship, etc.

A janitor invents a new useful widget, people buy widget and janitor quits job to organize and successfully run a company. Boom CEO out of janitor in a years time.

% janitors to CEOs= your avatar's chance of getting a job as a school teacher.

Doesn't address situation.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 8:36:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 7:05:43 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Yeah, because, libertarians totally support IP laws

Yeah, a lot of them do.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 8:37:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 6:08:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
lolwut? A thread about wikipedia has turned into a thread about capitalism. Also, Caramel, in some cases poor people are able to become successful. Maybe not all, but as was previously pointed out some have.

Well then then that settles it! A few people came out of poverty so clearly that system is superior.
President of DDO