After I went to all the trouble of finding a poem about why rich white men need a theory of adaptation in response to the hoi polloi, what did I get? Blurting assertions – well, just one blurted assertion at this stage but I'm sure there'll be others, bringing us back to the original post. It even included a "Sir."
Quote:
If, as evolutionists claim, life forms adapt and specialize to occupy every niche then why do they complain that poor people live in squalor etc.
|
Quote:
go and complain to Sir David or Sir Richard or whatever . . .
|
Many evoutionists are latte socialists, desirous of having an underclass to champion even though they themselves are the veriest epitome of everything Marx despised. Clearly, if the underclass ceased to exist, they'd have nothing to warble about in their ivory towers. No villains to lambaste, no statues to [encourage others to] pull down.
You know, I even heard on the radio the ludicrous idea that they [the latte socialists] had failed because the poorest 10% of society they'd set out to lift up or whatever they think they're doing, upon reflection after several, contravening Marxist theory and despite robust Trotskyite doctrines being applied.
NOTE: sentence structure is an attempt to channel latte thinking
Their observation? That the poorest 10% were still there! They'd be different people, obviously, the one's they'd set out to liberate as young graduates now having retired. And another fallacy they're oblivious to when babbling about capitalism having an inbuilt requirement for a permanent pool of unemployed, is that the underclass wants to work in the first place. The aristocracy doesn't. And without social mobility there would be neither aristocracy nor latte socialism – especially the latter. But my real point is that every society will always have a poorest 10% regardless of actual wealth, whether everyone lives in caves digesting dirt or in palaces shlooshing down champagne. The poorest 10% are shown in Turquoise.
currency units
¢ 12,345,678,900,011 - Trillionaire 1
¢ 12,345,678,900,009 - Trillionaire 2
¢ 12,345,678,900,008 - Trillionaire 3
¢ 12,345,678,900,007 - Trillionaire 4
¢ 12,345,678,900,006 - Trillionaire 5
¢ 12,345,678,900,005 - Trillionaire 6
¢ 12,345,678,900,004 - Trillionaire 7
¢ 12,345,678,900,003 - Trillionaire 8
¢ 12,345,678,900,002 - Trillionaire 9
¢ 12,345,678,899,999 - Trillionaire 10
spheres of caviar
7,654,321 - Café au lait 1
7,654,320 - Café au lait 2
7,654,320 - Café au lait 3
7,654,320 - Café au lait 4
7,654,320 - Café au lait 5
7,654,320 - Café au lait 6
7,654,320 - Café au lait 7
7,654,320 - Café au lait 8
7,654,320 - Café au lait 9
7,654,319 - Café au lait 10
specks of dirt
9,876,543,210 - Peasant 1
8,765,432,101 - Peasant 2
7,654,321,002 - Peasant 3
6,543,210,003 - Peasant 4
5,432,100,004 - Peasant 5
4,321,000,005 - Peasant 6
3,210,000,666 - Peasant 7
2,100,777,777 - Peasant 8
1,000,888,888 - Peasant 9
1,000,000,999 - Peasant 10
The only way there'd never be a poorest 10% is if everyone lived in the stone age. But even then, since not all rocks are the same size & weight, there'd be a gradient of ownership and as soon as you have that BINGO! there's percentiles to fall outside of and not only a poorest but also a richest cohort to contend with. And we all know which cohort evolutionists come from. It makes me sick.