I feel like egalitarianism is a waste of money.

[Solutrean_Hypothesis]

Why pour money into making everyone average? Into raising the bottom and flattening the top?

Into trying to prop up the weakest, most inferior among us, pretending they are 'average?'
I'm coming from an education background, so, mainly talking about middle, hs, and colleges.

Anyone in public schooling knows of many cases where the 2 or 3 little boogers that are 'special needs' take up all the class time, while the 2 or 3 gifted and talented languish in boredom, their gifts squanderd.

This is a common theme.

Why not spend that money on the talented tenth of every race,
and let them decide what a society should do? Just An Idea!

Thanks.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Because you're outvoted. Simple as that. It's a fundamental aspect of the distribution, as soon as you're above average, you're outnumbered and you're asking the below average to vote against their own interests.

 

[Solutrean_Hypothesis]

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Thank you for clearing that up.

Glad to be of help. I sympathize with your position but your vote is cancelled by the egalitarian's vote and they outnumber you.

 

[Solutrean_Hypothesis]

And, how long will this madness persist?

 

[shart_attack]

And, how long will this madness persist?

And how long until Luddly Neddite shows up in this thread to prove your hypothesis true?

 

[Rikurzhen]

And, how long will this madness persist?

Until we collapse. People will always take the most attractive option from a set of bad choices. They'll never take the hard choice, the better choice, if there is an easier choice available. Some in the group will see that the hard choice is the better choice and will sacrifice but they never have the numbers to carry the majority and so they get swept along with the group always taking the path of least resistance.

It's after the collapse that the game gets interesting.

 

[shart_attack]

And, how long will this madness persist?

Until we collapse. People will always take the most attractive option from a set of bad choices. They'll never take the hard choice, the better choice, if there is an easier choice available. Some in the group will see that the hard choice is the better choice and will sacrifice but they never have the numbers to carry the majority and so they get swept along with the group always taking the path of least resistance.

It's after the collapse that the game gets interesting.

Indeed.

It's when—as good ol' Southern man "George Stark" of Stephen King's novel The Dark Half would say—we go to "the place where all rail service terminates."

 

[Solutrean_Hypothesis]

Is this the usual level of banter on this site?

 

[shart_attack]

Is this the usual level of banter on this site?

'Til Harvard Co-Chairs of Psychology Gracie and Pogo show up to have the last word, yes.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Is this the usual level of banter on this site?

You set the tone. You start a thread and then you have to jump in and expand on your points, drive them home and people will, for the most part, follow your lead. Other than your original post you've just given one liners. You give one liners, and you'll get banter back. You make an argument and you'll get confirmation or rebuttal back.

People are not going to invest more time in your topic than you invest, unless they're totally jazzed with it on their own terms, and if that happens then they take the conversation towards a direction that suits them.

Ball is in your court.