So am I, and in the private schools I’ve been to I can tell you that those attending them are far superior intellectually, morally and physically than most others.
Something to remember is that in the UK and other countries private schools, though pricy, do not necessarily consist entirely or even mostly of rich students, save cases like Eton. Many wealthy students go to posh public schools. In fact a lot of the kids I went to private school with were not in there because of their money but because their parents wanted a superior education for them. Whether private schools in their mimicry of state schools often provide that is a matter for debate, but inasmuch as they do not tolerate hooligans and work with smaller classes, they already provide an advantage. Also, it’s necessary to distinguish the rich due to political entrepreneurship from those who are rich due to serving consumers. Both take skill, but the former is, in my eyes, not much to brag about… sort of like a person honing their intellect so as to be a better serial killer.
And objective reality…
If man can’t even centrally plan the economy successfully, how the hell is he going to centrally plan human nature? That’s my libertarian answer to this. Hasn’t enough been destroyed by man trying to control mother nature. Don’t want to have a gay kid? I have a better idea, don’t have any!
That’s not a better idea.
Prove it!
This is ridiculous. If you think that religion X is true, you prove it.
When you posit that something has objectively been proven false and is irrational you have the burden of proof to show this to be true. That’s how positive claims work.
Not to mention that we’re working with abstract concepts like Judeo-Christian values. That title could be given to almost anything. It’s a rather bold claim to say the cullimating ideas of thousands of years of philosophical inquiry are objectively wrong, and completely absurd to say that there isn’t an ounce of proof nessesary to back it up.
There aren’t such thing as Judaeo-Christian values.
Lots of the Old Testament is directly at odds with the New Testament.
Anecdotal evidence vs. anecdotal evidence = no conclusion
People can choose not to do a highly paid job; they may be perfectly able, but can decide to do another sort of job. The pursuit of wealth is not the only noble path one can take in life. Hence some “good” people may be rich. I assume we would agree that in general our fitness in the categories you detailed depends mostly on one’s parentage, although in a subsidiary way on our genes. I am writing this is in an unclear way, but surely there are a large amout of people who are perfectly able, but do not choose the “path” of wealth.
But how many dumb, ugly and corrupt people do end up becoming wealthy?
wow, this topic got derailed fast.
okay I think one of the main problems people would have with this is that the child doesn’t have a choice. The parents tamper with the child and give him a great talent for something, say piano. But the kid grows up and doesn’t want to play piano. He is resentful that his parents didn’t leave him to develop natural talents. Isn’t part of the joy in life discovering what you are talented at? etc.
I can see kids suing parents.
Come on. Don’t play silly tricks on me =] You assert that there’s truth in religion X, you prove it.
Yes. And so far as ‘judeo-christian values’ means values in line with rational ethics, then they don’t need to be thrown out of the window. But that says nothing about the validity of religion X.
What philosophical inquiry are you talking about ? Surely you don’t consider judeo-christian dogma to be philosophical inquiry ?
Suing them for what? Granting them exceptional skills they turned out to have no need for?
I wouldn`t call that a skill at all because it mostly takes what is in every other undertaking but politics despicable. Kissing up, not having a stance, lacking in loyalty, being eager to betray, being ready to prostitute yourself.
Plenty of ugly people are wealthy…How many dumb, attractive and corrupt people end up becoming wealthy?
You’re going to great lengths to miss the point.
You mean like Khruschev, Stalin, Beria or Brezhnev?
Or Franz Joseph for that matter.
I think he means using the economic, rather than the political means.
And I know of quite a few, for example the billionaire who set up sports world etc in our country Giles. He is fat, ugly, very very stupid, and there is a good case that he is corrupt. However, he managed to see a niche in the market, exploit it, and build up several hugely successful businesses. And this is in an industry hardly subsidised by government (stolen) money.
EDIT: Mike Ashley is the name, I forgot to say. He own(s/ed) Newcastle United FC as well.
Go to any major city and go to the wealthier parts and then to the less affluent places within that city.
You’ll notice an increase in crime (moral degeneration), a decrease in intelligence and the people also happen to be far less attractive.