stebo0728 wrote:...you can easily find people who overcome the situation and make something of themselves.
Confirmation Bias: I've always been suspicious of an argument that proposes an experiment that sets out to find only the people that would confirm its own premise. I can easily find people that can taste the color purple and see the sound a police siren makes (
http://www.synesthesia.info/), but what does that prove? That the people who can't taste the color purple aren't doing their darndest to achieve that not-so-lofty goal?
You know what would be a neater trick than showing me people that have, by some means or another, overcome their hindrances? Convince me that nobody who tried "hard enough" ever failed. Yeah, I know - it's asking you to prove a negative.
I was taught that success takes equal parts effort and opportunity. Now, you can dispute the ratio, but you can never escape the fact that opportunity involves a certain amount of luck. The more hard work you put in, the less you need to rely on luck, sure, but you can't ever eliminate it completely. Yeah, that means people can always excuse themselves from hard work because they say, "I've done it all." But that doesn't really matter, does it? So long as we can point to things that they haven't done that they reasonably could have, we know they're wrong.
It's another balancing act between abuse and injustice. The thing is, I think it's a lot easier to identify abuse - reminding people of the obvious things that they haven't done - than it is to identity to justify withholding help - constantly coming up with something else they could do.
And I'd like to correct something you seem to have taken about what I was saying: individual success does not only stand on the backs of the unfortunate - it involves successful manipulation of society. What I was saying is that society rests upon a heirarchical structure, where one person builds success from the needs of others, and where no one is born to equal needs.