Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (35563)	5/18/2009 8:13:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

That's all interesting, KLP... (but it has nothing to do with the question that I asked of you... twice.)

To: KLP who wrote (35563)	5/21/2009 12:42:57 PM
From: Don Hurst	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

>>" I think one generation is enough for the individuals in a family to get off their duff, stop whining about the situation their grandparents found themselves in, and do something to make things better for their entire family. Six generations from a former slave to the present is outlandish. That would tell me the people involved have no faith in themselves, and only want to be a part of a greater slavery.... Personally, I think every time someone relies on someone else totally for their 'daily bread' and for that of their children, it makes that person feel worthless. In this country, at least to date, there is an opportunity at every turn if one only wants to take advantage of it. "<< Good points...when the grandparents die, tax their estates at 100% and anyone still having family wealth after 6 generations now..."outlandish", take it from them.

To: KLP who wrote (35563)	5/21/2009 7:48:23 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "Six generations from a former slave to the present is outlandish. That would tell me the people involved have no faith in themselves, and only want to be a part of a greater slavery...." No offense, guy... but that strikes me as an incredibly stupid comment. Putting aside (for now) the well-know statistical fallacy that is trying to generalize from an aggregate statistic down to any single individual, (always statistically invalid), and which makes the quote above statistically fallacious... let's just try that quote out by running it in reverse, imaging that you are talking about some other 'group' across time. Imagine that there is SOME PRESENT DAY DESCENDANT somewhere of European Royalty (a Cromwell, a James, a King of France or of Prussia or something) who is RIGHT NOW a drunkard and a spendthrift, living in squalor somewhere around the globe... surely there must be PLENTY of such right? Degenerate gamblers, drug addicts, insurance and used car salesmen.... :-) Now... does this simple fact tell you that "the people involved have no faith in themselves, and only want to be a part of a greater slavery...." because they went from Kings to drunkery and paupers???????????????? Of course not!