View Single Post
Old 03-12-2018, 01:35 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,043
Thanks: 1,340
Thanks 385

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
You’re still confusing a few things here,

1) basketball is a relatively fair, open, competitive sport, adjudicated so that it remains fair and this is the reason the sport is not dominated by old white guys. Eventually a basketballer gets to a stage where they get less competitive and therefore their place is taken. There is a definitive goal in basketball which can measure success.

2) a person who is a musician is not playing in a fair, open, competitive sport, adjudicated so that it remains fair, but it does require a degree of talent to be a musician. But if we measure success in music as the amount of money a musician has we are not measuring musical talent, but if we measure ability to read music we are. Fact.

3) if we measure success in a hierarchical society by the amount of money people have we are looking at a unfair non-competitive market where the people who have the money can create and avoid rules to ensure they are always looked upon favourably. The people who are of the type similar to the people in power will be looked upon favourably and any behaviour whereby a person can cheat the rules or act immorally will lead to success. Fact. No talent required, just rich parents.
And further to this, if we put the manager of the engineers in amongst the engineers and gave them all a competitive task to complete (which doesn’t involve bullying or microwaving small animals), who would win? Either
1) the more financially successful manager
2) the more talented, intelligent, hard working engineers?
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote