Liberals - Is it ok to redistribute your GPA

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

gold...pure gold...!!!

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

_ wrote:

GPA is a DESCRIPTION of one's performance in school. Money is a RESOURCE.

Here's a GPA analogy for you:

I have blonde hair & blue eyes, and they bring me a certain amount of privilge. Only a minority of people in this country have (natural ) blonde hair & blue eyes. My appearance is described on various documents, like my driver's license. "Redistributing" people's GPAs would be like "redistributing" the hair & eye colors on driver's licenses, saying some people have different appearances than they really have. But this isn't a redistribution of the attributes that bring me privilege - only a misrepresentation of them. If you wanted to affect resource allocation, you should change the system that privileges people with blonde hair & blue eyes - and good GPAs.

The analogous redistribution regarding money would be to lie on people's W-2s. You're still not redistributing the wealth; you're just redistributing the description of the wealth.

Hair color is not performance based...

Hair color written on my driver's license is a description, GPA is a description as well.

And the reason the hair color does not need to be performance based is because it's an are you ready for this..... analogy

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

Hair color written on my driver's license is a description, GPA is a description as well.

And the reason the hair color does not need to be performance based is because it's an are you ready for this..... analogy

and this is realated to what again... So again you can't give me a straight anwswer... What a suprise

Huh?? :? I don't even know what you mean by that.

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

wealth isn't always performance based either.
Also, giving up GPA points wouldn't really help feed hungry kids, now would it?

Yeah, we need to let all those inner city kids working their asses off to pay for college know that their GPA is not directly related to their survival or that of their children.

You raise an excellent point that speaks about excessive GPA. Why should some have additional employment opportunities out of school due to their GPA? That is not equal/fair. I can't believe those greedy ****s want to force people with GPA's too low to graduate to try to survive on a mcdonalds income (if they're lucky).

I have no clue what you're saying.

But the more I think about it, if you want to use your analogy, sure lets try it...
If I had a 3.25 GPA, and we were to use a proportional scale to take away points and redistribute to the lower GPA recipients in regards to welfare amounts, lets see here...

I would have a about a 3.2 GPA after the reduction. So, yeah, I'd be willing to give it up if it helped someone else. And I know what you're probably gonna say: they didn't deserve it because it was a reward, and it will make them ill qualified for life/job.

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

I've seen this before (you've put it in at least 2 threads I've seen). It's not as clever as you think.

They should, at their own discretion do one or more of the following:
1) See what goods and/or services the other person can provide them in exchange for the meat. You are a doctor and promise to resusscitate me should I be drowning? Excellent, here's half my meat. You can build me a shelter to get out of the rain? Great, here's a third of my meat. You want to sit around and say I'm being unfair and should give you some meat? Ha, ha - here's how I killed the deer. Go kill one yourself.
2) Adopt a pet and feed it.
3) Give it away for nothing

But the one thing they should absolutely 100% NOT do is have it forcefully taken from them with no value in return (tangible or otherwise as they deem value).

And should the doctor take that same approach when you are drowning?

Also, taxes are not taken by force.

No, one would hope in all the time you're on this island, you realize the benefit the doctor can provide and you provide services to said person, so should the time come, he knows you're "good for it." Or, he can do it of his own free will. Or, he can let you drown. Who would know? The point is, it's his decision, and hopefully you're smart enough to realize that ahead of time. It's called insurance.

And, yes taxes are taken by force. If I don't pay taxes what happens to me?

I think someone may have had their IQ redistributed....

I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.

And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to be by far the best country in the world!!

USA!! USA!! USA!!

brandon10 wrote:

I think someone may have had their IQ redistributed....

I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.

And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to have by far the best country in the world!!

USA!! USA!! USA!!

Yes. Agree. But, what's going on now is NOT this. And, if I'm a wealthy tax payer and want to wage war... Well, it's my money, why don't I have a greater say? (Can't wait for the responses to that).

So, on that line of thinking - would you be willing to redistibute the value of a vote? The vote of those who pay more in taxes is worth more than those that they are subsidizing? That does seem bizarly fair even though it's against every tenent of our Constitution.

Nobody on the right doesn't want the truly destitute to be helped. It's the bulk of people who take advantage of the system. Look at NYC welfare rolls in the days of David Dinkins and after Rudy Giuliani took over. It didn't get more dangerous because fewer people were taken care of by the city. It got safer because he got them back to work and spent wisely on the police, and very infrastructure you refer to.

well it is really simple. if rich folks want to get into a lower tax bracket, give money away to charity. bang, lower tax bracket. done. end of discussion...

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

I think someone may have had their IQ redistributed....

I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.

And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to have by far the best country in the world!!

USA!! USA!! USA!!

Yes. Agree. But, what's going on now is NOT this. And, if I'm a wealthy tax payer and want to wage war... Well, it's my money, why don't I have a greater say? (Can't wait for the responses to that).

So, on that line of thinking - would you be willing to redistibute the value of a vote? The vote of those who pay more in taxes is worth more than those that they are subsidizing? That does seem bizarly fair even though it's against every tenent of our Constitution.

Nobody on the right doesn't want the truly destitute to be helped. It's the bulk of people who take advantage of the system. Look at NYC welfare rolls in the days of David Dinkins and after Rudy Giuliani took over. It didn't get more dangerous because fewer people were taken care of by the city. It got safer because he got them back to work and spent wisely on the police, and very infrastructure you refer to.

If you are rich and wish to spend your money on needless wars...then you are fucking up this world FAR more than any welfare recipient taking in 600$ a month!!!