George Floyd - America so f**ked up

1. Who said he isn't? I'm just getting involved. Or is it a closed club where only you can comment?

2. Right, so we no logic to your argument then. A guy on an internet forum has an idea what would work in his opinion. You then constantly post about his life and how he should give up his assets. Makes sense.

3. You're making comments on his life, his success and ultimately his actions throughout his life. So yes, you are.

4. And Oldie said he thinks there is a better system. So you see now how pointless it is to suggest he gives up his assets. Good.


5. Sure, and instead of being proactive about it - pondering how he believes this can happen.. You just want to try and take this water constantly with arguments that we've established hold no real ground. I asked Oldie about how he thinks this could be done, and now you have a proper reply with actual debate. Instead, you chose the route of suggesting he gives up his assets and if he doesn't then he's a hypocrite. Is that really the debate you're after? Doesn't much sound like you're here to learn, rather just pick on a particular poster. I have taken it up with him, and look how the discussion continues, rather than trying to score points and wind someone up.

6. You didn't choose. Did you insult me, or will you redact your point that Oldie insulted you? 

Or we can ignore these posts and crack back on with sensible debate. Ball is in your court, Jung.

The problem is eric that Jung is painting a scenario where Oldie is the only person who'd lose out, with no real benefit to the community. Then he's saying, well you're a hypocrite for not making that decision. Which is ridiculous.

A fairer thing to say would be, well what are you doing about it to drive change? Start a petition, protest etc. It's nice to complain and highlight the problem, but what can we do to actually fix it. Of course, argue against the point, that's more than fair. But to continuously drive home the same stupid point over pages and then starting to make judgement and assumptions on their life, isn't fair, or indeed right.

In terms of debating change, I'm not sure one person giving up their wealth does it. We'd need change on a much larger scale. Dare I say, from the government. 

To bring the debate back on track (without the need to make assumptions on people's lives), Oldie - what would you suggest would drive this change? What do you think can be done about it? 

Glad to get his on track. I'm taking Scooby's previous advice on cracking on with the debate, rather than point scoring and trying to goad people into getting wound up. Perhaps others should take note.

Your 4 points all sound nice, and fairly achievable. I'll be curious to hear others' opinions on the points raised, as I agree with them all. 

I don't always think something radical is needed - baby steps to get us going in the right direction.

Do you think Covid will bring the classes (lower, middle, upper) together - or separate them further? The mega rich will just get richer of course, but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts

Could you write that so that it makes sense please and I'll take another look.

I got as far as, 'Right, so we no logic then' and gave up.

Thanks for your time.

At this point you would no doubt say that I am making things up, in the quoted post I didn't tell you to pay more tax, I told you where to pay more tax.

You are unlikely to affect much change on thread like this, on a backwater football forum, how many people are contributing to this thread, maybe 10? Hardly an audience that's going to drive a national agenda.

Absolute winners and losers in absolute terms.

Nobody is 'forced' to lead any life. Don't like the job, get a different one. Don't give me any sob stories about it not being that easy, I came from the bottom, so just don't want to hear it. Remember, hope is a more powerful message than fear.

Not even sure what the word salad is in your last sentence. Are you saying that an over-subscribed sector in the workforce is likely to lead to higher wages and improved working conditions?

Perhaps the most vocal on financial rebalancing should set up some sort of JustGiving arrangement where they put their money where their mouths are and help the most needy rather than just making loads of noise and doing nothing until politicians force change? 

Firstly, Oldie is more than capable of fighting his own arguments.

Secondly, I've not suggested that he said I should cede any of my assets, my comments were in reply to your previous post.

Thirdly, I'm not judging his entire life, just his comments on income distribution.

Fourth. Guy removed from position at the charity. You would have a point had my argument have been that income distribution should be flattened to support him, but I didn't go anywhere near suggesting that, all I said was that, in my opinion, the trustees have made a poor / incorrect decision.

Fifth. It's Oldie suggesting that moving money around in this way, ie, flattening of income distribution, will affect change, so why are you telling me that it's me who has a strange concept of what drives change, all I'm doing is highlighting that he doesn't truly believe that income should be flatly distributed. It's Oldie's argument, not mine. Take it up with him, not me.

1. Who said he isn't? I'm just getting involved. Or is it a closed club where only you can comment?

2. Right, so we no logic to your argument then. A guy on an internet forum has an idea what would work in his opinion. You then constantly post about his life and how he should give up his assets. Makes sense.

3. You're making comments on his life, his success and ultimately his actions throughout his life. So yes, you are.

4. And Oldie said he thinks there is a better system. So you see now how pointless it is to suggest he gives up his assets. Good.


5. Sure, and instead of being proactive about it - pondering how he believes this can happen.. You just want to try and take this water constantly with arguments that we've established hold no real ground. I asked Oldie about how he thinks this could be done, and now you have a proper reply with actual debate. Instead, you chose the route of suggesting he gives up his assets and if he doesn't then he's a hypocrite. Is that really the debate you're after? Doesn't much sound like you're here to learn, rather just pick on a particular poster. I have taken it up with him, and look how the discussion continues, rather than trying to score points and wind someone up.

6. You didn't choose. Did you insult me, or will you redact your point that Oldie insulted you? 

Or we can ignore these posts and crack back on with sensible debate. Ball is in your court, Jung.

1. I'm entitled to say that he can argue these points, I didn't state that you couldn't.

2. I don't even understand your point.

3. I'm commenting on him making a suggestion, namely flattening of income distribution, but still wanting to retain assets amassed in excess of those held by low income groups. To me it seems a reasonable point, you don't agree, OK, we disagree, that's life.

4. No, it wouldn't be pointless for him to lead by example, his contribution would drive us closer towards his stated objective. Do you see how pointless it is to argue otherwise? Good.

5. No, we haven't established that my argument holds no ground. You've just asserted that. Now, here it comes, having made that assertion I would like you to demonstrate that your assertion is correct please.

6. Sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying.