victor, no need to patronize. i still haven't heard your "facts." rhetoric, yes. hey it is debate time, right ;-)
you've explained that someone can rise from poverty to riches. i agree!
problem is, that isn't the issue.
the issue is whether there is a correlation between parental wealth, knowledge and contacts and the fiscal success of their children in the across the us population. you have NOT provided ANY evidence or FACT to contradict such a correlation.
i can roll a "1" on a six sided die. that doesn't prove that a "1" occurs more frequently than "4," "5," and "6" combined (17% compared to 50%). yet, that appears to be your argument.
you also have refused to explain how many millionaires you know who didn't grow up in poverty - and i don't think that was an oversight. you were quick to point out 1 who grew up in poverty so i know you can count the other side, right ;-)
that is like telling how you rolled a "1" and refuse to tell how many "4"s "5"s and "6"s you rolled while arguing that "1" accurs as frequently as "4," "5," and "6." now that isn't right, is it?
i think you know the ratio of millionaires you know who grew up in poverty compared to those who didn't is very small and you want to hide this fact by not answering a simple question.
since we agree to disagree, no need to respond (you can if you want, i don't try and tell folks what to do). |
