Author Topic: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?  (Read 23005 times)

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #100 on: September 16, 2017, 11:13:27 AM »
I'd love to see a version of that chart that went back into the 1600's, too. It feels like the last 400 years (well, truthfully, the entirety of human history) has been a constant series of wars.  Our ability to efficiently kill the enemy has gradually increased over time as well.  I have to think that the advent of nuclear weapons and MAD has been a major factor in the decrease in the scale of wars since WWII.  Of course, you could also point at the increased level of global trade for the same effect.

Ask and ye shall receive.  You are right, we've been killing each other at a pretty high rate since at least the 1400's.  But there's been a precipitous drop in the 50 years:



Great data visualization. Edward Tufte would approve :) Link to original?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27180
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #101 on: September 16, 2017, 11:39:51 AM »
That's why I say WWII was necessary.

We came close to world war in those cases, but we didn't and that's the point! The lessons of WWII and the UN were instrumental in this.

And imagine a parallel history where we did have that war, and millions died in the cold war, and people were sitting here in 2017 and arguing it was better that we had extra deaths in the cold war, cause now US/N.Korea won't go to war.

Imagine another one, where we nuke N.Korea a month from now, and 50 years from now, someone is arguing that's a good thing, because we learned from that experience, and avoided two other wars in the meantime.

I don't buy it.

Your logic is too blunt: we learned something, therefore it was necessary and good.

We can improve and grow without wars and deaths, and just because we learn when they happen don't make them beneficial in total.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27180
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #102 on: September 16, 2017, 11:46:03 AM »
In other words, you're arguing we learned something from WWI & WWII which prevented more deaths aftter they happened.

Totally. I agree with you on that.

Then you try to say that because of that, they were necessary and good. And that's where you lose me. Only if you can show that 1) They prevented greater tragedies than they were, and 2) There was no other way to prevent those things.

One is probably unknowable, as we've agreed, but two seems prima facie false. Clearly we can learn things without massive wars, we can improve and better ourselves. Those aren't the only mechanisms for knowledge--in fact, they seem like one of the worst ones.

EDIT: That chart, for example, two posts up.  Global conflicts are definitly going down. But I'd argue this is to other, non-war reasons. We're getting better as people, as societies. More war doesn't prevent war, it begets war.  WWI directly led to WWII. It wasn't a "good lesson," it was a precipitator for more deaths. And WWII may have bee the same, but for human rationality in the cold war.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 11:48:20 AM by arebelspy »
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #103 on: September 16, 2017, 12:27:50 PM »
You're asking me to prove a hypothetical, which is impossible. So to be fair let's turn it around, you prove that it would have been less tragic if WWII didn't happen. The Nazis rise to power and the world does nothing as they occupy one country after another. All of Europe is controlled by nuclear armed fascists, there is no UN and the other world superpowers are isolationists.

And you conveniently avoided the issue of the US Civil War, so I'll ask again: Was it necessary and (ultimately) good? It was a tragedy for sure, all war is. But it would be far more tragic if slavery still existed in the US. So it's not that I want to see lots of people die in war, it's that there are times where it's necessary because the alternatives (including "do nothing") are that much worse. 

The US/N.Korea example is interesting. We've seen a level of international cooperation and diplomacy that did not exist before WWII (It really did not, nation states were much more insular). We are witnessing, in real time, the fruits of WWII, where world powers are diligently working through all possible options to avoid conflict and to avoid a world war (e.g. the US and China getting pulled into open conflict over N. Korea).

So it's not that I think people dying in war is good, as if the more that die the more we learn. What I'm saying is that it's necessary at times, because try as we may, there was no convincing the Nazis (or the Confederates) to peacefully change their ways. Of course, every possible diplomatic channel should be fully exhausted to avoid war, and we should do everything possible to minimize death of innocents. But in cases where we've reached the end of diplomacy, war (and resulting casualties) are necessary for progress.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 12:30:09 PM by FINate »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #104 on: September 16, 2017, 12:40:02 PM »
And if you're arguing that it would be better if nothing bad happened in the world, that people were selfless and always acted altruistically, of course I agree with that. I just think it's extremely naive. 

Linda_Norway

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3360
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #105 on: September 19, 2017, 07:22:30 AM »
I think the world leader are trying more diplomatic solutions, because the alternative is so devastating. USA and other countries have such powerful bombs that they can make the world an unlivable place if they would release the whole bunch. Let's hope North Korea's leader also values his country and people, as the country will truly be wiped out if Trump really gets loose on him in a militairy way.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1534
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #106 on: September 20, 2017, 12:42:56 PM »
There's a theory in evolution and linguistics called punctuated equilibrium. The specifics are above my head, but the gist of it is that the vast majority of evolution (biological and linguistic) is a very slow, very incremental process. However, from time to time, something big happens to shake things up, and evolution suddenly starts going super mega fast for a little while. Then it settles down into equilibrium for a long time until another shake-up.

It could be argued that we as a species would eventually have gotten to where we are today without the varied conflicts of the 20th century (and earlier), but it would have taken much, much longer. But those conflicts served as the shake-up that caused us to get to this point much sooner. So the conflicts weren't necessary, but they did speed things up.

(Apologies if I got the theory somewhat wrong. I not only learned about it from the linguistics side, but it was almost 15 years ago.)

Tass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #107 on: September 20, 2017, 12:52:14 PM »
There's no reason that the shake-up has to be violent conflict, though. Evolutionarily, the most rapid and interesting evolution often occurs when new resources are made available - when survival is easy rather than challenging. When more than just the very fittest survive, there's more room for diversification, and for discovery of new niches where the definition of "fittest" is different.

http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/survival-of-the-friendliest
^ I'm a biology nerd, so YMMV, but this article is INCREDIBLY COOL.

Only tangentially relates back to the question at hand, but: although the World Wars certainly changed the political landscape on Earth, a series of escalating violence isn't really that out of step with the rest of recent human history (recent meaning the last thousand years or so). I would argue that many of the major shake-ups that changed the way humans think about morality, our relationship to society, the kind of future we want to build, etc, are far more peaceable advances. The advent of agriculture and the advent of the internet. The unprecedented worldwide decline in infant mortality over the last decade. Violence doesn't make people more open-minded, opportunity does.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27180
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #108 on: September 20, 2017, 03:04:06 PM »
There's no reason that the shake-up has to be violent conflict, though.

Exactly.

The industrial revolution, and technological revolution, and such, were HUGE shake ups, but didn't need violence to happen.

Violent conflict can totally cause change. But it's not the only way. And plenty of times it happens without any change. It's neither necessary nor sufficient.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1911
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #109 on: September 27, 2017, 01:45:37 PM »
I guess there's a weaker statement that can be made, which is:

1. WWII can be a colossal tragedy, but
2. There's no guarantee that editing history by going back in time and changing it wouldn't cause something even more catastrophic to take place.

Sort of the "do no harm" philosophy to messing with history.

grmagne

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 65
  • Location: Toronto
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #110 on: October 01, 2017, 10:21:06 AM »
There's a theory in evolution and linguistics called punctuated equilibrium. The specifics are above my head, but the gist of it is that the vast majority of evolution (biological and linguistic) is a very slow, very incremental process. However, from time to time, something big happens to shake things up, and evolution suddenly starts going super mega fast for a little while. Then it settles down into equilibrium for a long time until another shake-up.

I read a book called "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution" about six years ago and this was definitely true of human evolution. We evolved slowly for about one million years but then went through hyper-fast evolution during the past 10000 years after humans began settling in towns & cities. We're still evolving at relatively fast speed compared to most other species.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11823
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #111 on: October 02, 2017, 08:24:16 AM »
There's a theory in evolution and linguistics called punctuated equilibrium. The specifics are above my head, but the gist of it is that the vast majority of evolution (biological and linguistic) is a very slow, very incremental process. However, from time to time, something big happens to shake things up, and evolution suddenly starts going super mega fast for a little while. Then it settles down into equilibrium for a long time until another shake-up.

I read a book called "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution" about six years ago and this was definitely true of human evolution. We evolved slowly for about one million years but then went through hyper-fast evolution during the past 10000 years after humans began settling in towns & cities. We're still evolving at relatively fast speed compared to most other species.

Evolution happens through natural selection.  The members of a species with traits that lead to death before sexual maturity (through starvation/freezing to death, through predation by other animals, through disease) eventually die out.  The members of a species who create the most offspring eventually win.  Tool use (starvation prevention, control of environment), medical care (disease prevention), and social constructs (monogamy is a pretty common human societal construct, birth control methods mean far less procreation) all act as brakes for evolution.

I don't at all understand your argument at all as it relates to human evolution.  (It might well be perfectly valid for linguistic evolution though.)

Tass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #112 on: October 02, 2017, 04:46:27 PM »
Evolution happens through natural selection.  The members of a species with traits that lead to death before sexual maturity (through starvation/freezing to death, through predation by other animals, through disease) eventually die out.  The members of a species who create the most offspring eventually win.  Tool use (starvation prevention, control of environment), medical care (disease prevention), and social constructs (monogamy is a pretty common human societal construct, birth control methods mean far less procreation) all act as brakes for evolution.

Ahem.

Evolutionarily, the most rapid and interesting evolution often occurs when new resources are made available - when survival is easy rather than challenging. When more than just the very fittest survive, there's more room for diversification, and for discovery of new niches where the definition of "fittest" is different.

http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/survival-of-the-friendliest

(You're right that selection pressures against humans have significantly relaxed. I only mean to point out that's not equivalent to evolution slowing or stopping.)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 04:53:15 PM by Tass »

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #113 on: October 17, 2017, 06:59:13 PM »
Quote from: Leisured
...
Some female Mustchians have mentioned the lack of female suffrage in 1916. I am a man, and from what I have seen in political opinion polls, upper class women vote much the same as upper class men, middle class women vote much the same as middle class men, and working class women vote much the same as working class men. Female suffrage means we double the number of votes cast for much the same political outcome.




edit: corrected citation in quote.

I lol'ed at the gif.

But it's a well-known fact that women lean liberal, so not quite.

I'd go billionaire 1000%. Not for the riches alone, but for the ability to explore the near pristine version of North America.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11823
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #114 on: October 17, 2017, 07:09:23 PM »
Quote from: Leisured
...
Some female Mustchians have mentioned the lack of female suffrage in 1916. I am a man, and from what I have seen in political opinion polls, upper class women vote much the same as upper class men, middle class women vote much the same as middle class men, and working class women vote much the same as working class men. Female suffrage means we double the number of votes cast for much the same political outcome.




edit: corrected citation in quote.

I lol'ed at the gif.

But it's a well-known fact that women lean liberal, so not quite.

I'd go billionaire 1000%. Not for the riches alone, but for the ability to explore the near pristine version of North America.

It would be cool to see/experience cities in different continents when they were truly unique . . . before everything became the same grey skyscrapers, cars, and people walking around with cellphones.

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #115 on: October 17, 2017, 07:48:46 PM »
It would be cool to see/experience cities in different continents when they were truly unique . . . before everything became the same grey skyscrapers, cars, and people walking around with cellphones.
The flip side to this is that it was a truly life-risking experience to travel those great distances to different world locations back then.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1911
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #116 on: October 25, 2017, 07:22:01 AM »
If you want pristine, you really need to be earlier than 1916. More like 1840.

We've actually added trees since 1916. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ago/

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3523
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #117 on: November 15, 2017, 04:31:41 PM »
Interesting article.  I think I'll use it in my classroom -- students eat up stuff like this!  Of course, I'll have to fix the writer's grammar. 

Linda_Norway

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3360
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #118 on: November 16, 2017, 02:10:09 AM »
If you want pristine, you really need to be earlier than 1916. More like 1840.

We've actually added trees since 1916. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ago/

I think it was pretty bad in Norway too, in the past. In many places they had mines where they used fire to expand the mines. Other places they had a lot of charcoal production, which is done with fire. In some places most of the old forest has been removed by large scale production in the past.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6951
  • Location: United States
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #119 on: November 16, 2017, 06:39:07 AM »
Quote from: Leisured
...
Some female Mustchians have mentioned the lack of female suffrage in 1916. I am a man, and from what I have seen in political opinion polls, upper class women vote much the same as upper class men, middle class women vote much the same as middle class men, and working class women vote much the same as working class men. Female suffrage means we double the number of votes cast for much the same political outcome.




edit: corrected citation in quote.

I lol'ed at the gif.

But it's a well-known fact that women lean liberal, so not quite.

I'd go billionaire 1000%. Not for the riches alone, but for the ability to explore the near pristine version of North America.

Since they apparently vote the same as men, let's let only women vote. Please?


arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27180
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #120 on: November 16, 2017, 09:42:06 AM »
Wow, blown out!

Good data, iowajes. Thanks for sharing!
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8416
  • Age: 60
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #121 on: November 16, 2017, 10:52:12 AM »
Wow, blown out!

Good data, iowajes. Thanks for sharing!
Iowajes, that information is oddly comforting. THANK YOU!

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6951
  • Location: United States
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #122 on: November 16, 2017, 11:20:52 AM »
I do think it is based on polls, and the 538 polls were wrong about the general election; but they were also quite close- so when it went the other way, it was surprising but not hugely so.

The men's map is basically the opposite color.



I haven't seen actual data though.

Tass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #123 on: November 16, 2017, 11:48:55 AM »
I do think it is based on polls, and the 538 polls were wrong about the general election; but they were also quite close

The 538 polls were within their margin of error on the general election; it was simply a closer race than anyone expected. The men/women voting breakdown is based on legitimate data. Last year had the biggest voting gender gap in Presidential history.



(Is there a way to make that not enormous?)

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #124 on: November 17, 2017, 12:56:42 PM »
I do think it is based on polls, and the 538 polls were wrong about the general election; but they were also quite close- so when it went the other way, it was surprising but not hugely so.

The men's map is basically the opposite color.



I haven't seen actual data though.

Totally oversimplified, stereotype conclusion:

Women want someone to take care of them
Men don't

Funny how that works.

I didn't vote for either. I did vote.

Tass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #125 on: November 17, 2017, 02:13:01 PM »
Totally oversimplified, stereotype conclusion:

Women want someone to take care of them
Men don't

Funny how that works.

I didn't vote for either. I did vote.



...anyway

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #126 on: November 17, 2017, 02:34:02 PM »

Totally oversimplified, stereotype conclusion:

Women want someone to take care of them
Men don't

Funny how that works.

I didn't vote for either. I did vote.

I suppose you also believe things like "black people don't get ahead in life because they are lazy". 

Sexism is just as ugly as racism. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11823
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #127 on: November 17, 2017, 03:24:38 PM »

Totally oversimplified, stereotype conclusion:

Women want someone to take care of them
Men don't

Funny how that works.

I didn't vote for either. I did vote.

I suppose you also believe things like "black people don't get ahead in life because they are lazy". 

Sexism is just as ugly as racism.


Maybe fewer woman wanted a president who doesn't feel like his power let's him grab them by the pussy.  Maybe some women supported the idea of a female president.  Maybe some of them realized that Trump had no policies outlined, and little idea what he was doing.

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #128 on: November 18, 2017, 04:21:49 PM »

Totally oversimplified, stereotype conclusion:

Women want someone to take care of them
Men don't

Funny how that works.

I didn't vote for either. I did vote.

I suppose you also believe things like "black people don't get ahead in life because they are lazy". 

Sexism is just as ugly as racism.


Maybe fewer woman wanted a president who doesn't feel like his power let's him grab them by the pussy.  Maybe some women supported the idea of a female president.  Maybe some of them realized that Trump had no policies outlined, and little idea what he was doing.

So you're saying males aren't bothered by that? That's sexist.

You're also acting like history doesn't look like this:


Wait, women voted for the rapist in the 90's? Weird. Maybe that wasn't the key difference.

Tass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #129 on: November 18, 2017, 04:46:41 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #130 on: November 18, 2017, 04:50:47 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

I looked up some of his other posts in other threads - the bolded part seems to be correct. 

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #131 on: November 18, 2017, 04:54:54 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

Character attack. A famous argumentative fallacy.

Tass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #132 on: November 18, 2017, 09:36:58 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

I looked up some of his other posts in other threads - the bolded part seems to be correct.

See I feel like I saw a lot of reasonable (or at least topic-oriented) posts in other threads. Seems like he just saw an opportunity to pick a fight here.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #133 on: November 18, 2017, 09:50:56 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

Character attack. A famous argumentative fallacy.

I think there should be a rule - if you are going to bring up the word 'fallacy', you have to use the original greek term for the fallacy you're referencing.  In this case it would be argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person).

I should also point out that someone calling you a jerk is not an ad hominem, if you actually are acting like a jerk.  In that case it's just a factual description of your behavior. 

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #134 on: November 18, 2017, 10:03:12 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

Character attack. A famous argumentative fallacy.

I think there should be a rule - if you are going to bring up the word 'fallacy', you have to use the original greek term for the fallacy you're referencing.  In this case it would be argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person).

I should also point out that someone calling you a jerk is not an ad hominem, if you actually are acting like a jerk.  In that case it's just a factual description of your behavior.
Jerk is a subjective designation. Generally, a person whose opinion is questioned feels that the questioner is a jerk but this is irrelevant to the argument.

If we wanted to bring objectivity into the "jerk" designation it would involve personal attacks on a party in the argument rather than addressing the content. Which would not make me the jerk.

Using the original form is completely irrelevant. But while we're being picky, it's Latin. Not Greek.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #135 on: November 18, 2017, 10:17:12 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

Character attack. A famous argumentative fallacy.

I think there should be a rule - if you are going to bring up the word 'fallacy', you have to use the original greek term for the fallacy you're referencing.  In this case it would be argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person).

I should also point out that someone calling you a jerk is not an ad hominem, if you actually are acting like a jerk.  In that case it's just a factual description of your behavior.
Jerk is a subjective designation. Generally, a person whose opinion is questioned feels that the questioner is a jerk but this is irrelevant to the argument.

If we wanted to bring objectivity into the "jerk" designation it would involve personal attacks on a party in the argument rather than addressing the content. Which would not make me the jerk.

Using the original form is completely irrelevant. But while we're being picky, it's Latin. Not Greek.

Oh I just get tired of people coming into a thread, acting like jerks, then crying "ad hominem" when someone points out their bad behavior. 

Re: Greek vs Latin, it's a bit more complex than that.  Aristotle was the person that came up with the idea of logical fallacies, so in one sense all logical fallacies have a Greek origin.  On the other hand, the 'common fallacies' we talk about nowadays originated with John Locke, who was neither Greek nor Latin (but did write in Latin, obviously). 

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #136 on: November 18, 2017, 10:41:29 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

Character attack. A famous argumentative fallacy.

I think there should be a rule - if you are going to bring up the word 'fallacy', you have to use the original greek term for the fallacy you're referencing.  In this case it would be argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person).

I should also point out that someone calling you a jerk is not an ad hominem, if you actually are acting like a jerk.  In that case it's just a factual description of your behavior.
Jerk is a subjective designation. Generally, a person whose opinion is questioned feels that the questioner is a jerk but this is irrelevant to the argument.

If we wanted to bring objectivity into the "jerk" designation it would involve personal attacks on a party in the argument rather than addressing the content. Which would not make me the jerk.

Using the original form is completely irrelevant. But while we're being picky, it's Latin. Not Greek.

Oh I just get tired of people coming into a thread, acting like jerks, then crying "ad hominem" when someone points out their bad behavior. 

Re: Greek vs Latin, it's a bit more complex than that.  Aristotle was the person that came up with the idea of logical fallacies, so in one sense all logical fallacies have a Greek origin.  On the other hand, the 'common fallacies' we talk about nowadays originated with John Locke, who was neither Greek nor Latin (but did write in Latin, obviously).
Look back up the thread . My posts were all on topic. A response to me dragged it away to the discussion of the voting gap. Then the bad behavior started -- directed at me.

And the "term" -- which is what you specifically referenced as being originally greek in your original attempt to drag the discussion away from the topic at hand -- is latin regardless of the roots of the concept. So again, if you want to nit pick irrelevant details, you're asking for it if you don't get them right. You have failed at logic and facts in the last few posts in an attempt to assert intellectual superiority. If there's a problem in this thread, that hypocrisy is the root of it.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #137 on: November 18, 2017, 11:16:24 PM »
And maybe you're trolling with intentionally inflammatory comments totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, which has mostly otherwise concluded. Hmm.

Character attack. A famous argumentative fallacy.

I think there should be a rule - if you are going to bring up the word 'fallacy', you have to use the original greek term for the fallacy you're referencing.  In this case it would be argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person).

I should also point out that someone calling you a jerk is not an ad hominem, if you actually are acting like a jerk.  In that case it's just a factual description of your behavior.
Jerk is a subjective designation. Generally, a person whose opinion is questioned feels that the questioner is a jerk but this is irrelevant to the argument.

If we wanted to bring objectivity into the "jerk" designation it would involve personal attacks on a party in the argument rather than addressing the content. Which would not make me the jerk.

Using the original form is completely irrelevant. But while we're being picky, it's Latin. Not Greek.

Oh I just get tired of people coming into a thread, acting like jerks, then crying "ad hominem" when someone points out their bad behavior. 

Re: Greek vs Latin, it's a bit more complex than that.  Aristotle was the person that came up with the idea of logical fallacies, so in one sense all logical fallacies have a Greek origin.  On the other hand, the 'common fallacies' we talk about nowadays originated with John Locke, who was neither Greek nor Latin (but did write in Latin, obviously).
Look back up the thread . My posts were all on topic. A response to me dragged it away to the discussion of the voting gap. Then the bad behavior started -- directed at me.

And the "term" -- which is what you specifically referenced as being originally greek in your original attempt to drag the discussion away from the topic at hand -- is latin regardless of the roots of the concept. So again, if you want to nit pick irrelevant details, you're asking for it if you don't get them right. You have failed at logic and facts in the last few posts in an attempt to assert intellectual superiority. If there's a problem in this thread, that hypocrisy is the root of it.

My point was never about your arguments, it was about your behavior.  I've bolded the parts above, if you have any doubt - you are acting like a dick. 

Ie, aggressive language = being a dick.

Of course, another pattern I've noticed with people like you is that you seem to have a real blind spot when it comes to your aggressive/dickish behavior.  So I doubt this instance of it being pointed out will result in a moment of honest reflection and the consideration that "oh, maybe I am acting badly and I didn't realize it". 

In fact I expect you will merely dig in your heels and get more belligerent.  We'll see. 

And, re: Latin.  Just because something is written in Latin does not mean it's Latin in origin.  As is the case here.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 11:21:28 PM by tyort1 »

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1240
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #138 on: November 18, 2017, 11:20:31 PM »
I read through this entire thread and carefully considered everyone's viewpoints before coming to the most reasonable answer I could: I'd rather be a billionaire in 1916 because they had really great clothes back then.

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #139 on: November 18, 2017, 11:21:30 PM »
You two have derailed this far enough to whine about posts you don't like. I have nothing else to say on this. Back to the topic at hand.

FIREySkyline

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #140 on: November 18, 2017, 11:22:43 PM »
I read through this entire thread and carefully considered everyone's viewpoints before coming to the most reasonable answer I could: I'd rather be a billionaire in 1916 because they had really great clothes back then.
I've heard they were terribly uncomfortable, though. I dunno. I kinda like being able to wear a soft tee and jeans. Or some nice merino.

SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #141 on: November 19, 2017, 09:57:45 AM »
Average american today.

I like my life.  As an average American, I have a lot at my disposable because of technology that no money in 1916 could have afforded.

Even asking this question about the 1950s billionaire vs today's average American would be challenging. 

Rimu05

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 189
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #142 on: November 19, 2017, 02:14:23 PM »
Rather be average today.

I could fantasize about all the art I'd like to experience during this time.  Harlem renaissance, the jazz age, etc... Also since, I am not American by birth (but by citizenship), I truly want to know what it would be like to be a black American in such oppressive times.

Anyway, while not 1916, talking to my great grandma who was born in 1921 is quite interesting. She gave us a family photo of when she was a child and you can see the influence of british colonialism. However, I believe at the time, we still owned our land as she's been in the same parts for a while. However, one thing I noted is that my great grandmother is pretty light skinned. It really makes me want to trace our lineage. What are our migratory patterns here?

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #143 on: November 19, 2017, 02:15:49 PM »
I read through this entire thread and carefully considered everyone's viewpoints before coming to the most reasonable answer I could: I'd rather be a billionaire in 1916 because they had really great clothes back then.
I've heard they were terribly uncomfortable, though. I dunno. I kinda like being able to wear a soft tee and jeans. Or some nice merino.
Both are very fine points indeed.  It sure feels like we've lost a lot of very fine style as we've adopted more and more casual and comfortable attire.  Someone needs to invent comfortable clothes with the styles of that era.  With the advances we've seen in textiles, it should certainly be possible!

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1911
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #144 on: November 20, 2017, 01:18:34 PM »
When people talk about the tech billionaires of 2016 in the equivalent of this thread next centure, do you think it will be more like how the pop stars/ rappers dress, or more how Steve Jobs dressed?

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #145 on: December 08, 2017, 08:39:18 AM »
A big difference between the 1916 billionaire and the rich guy in 1000 AD or 2000 BC is stability. In 1000 or 2000 BC you could have been overran by barbarians at anytime and had all your gold and cattle stolen and that is just if you were lucky enough to escape with your life.

And the question is average american not retired mustachian. I'll take 1916.

enron

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Location: Boston
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #146 on: December 17, 2017, 09:43:07 PM »
I would take living today at even a minimum wage level versus being a billionaire in 1916.  The standard of living has increased so dramatically thanks to technology.   

Moneyball

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #147 on: December 20, 2017, 01:50:25 AM »
I'd take the 1916 billion. The comforts of modern life are nice, but one would be a very special human with that amount back then!

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6951
  • Location: United States
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #148 on: December 20, 2017, 07:05:42 AM »
Average american today.

I like my life.  As an average American, I have a lot at my disposable because of technology that no money in 1916 could have afforded.

Even asking this question about the 1950s billionaire vs today's average American would be challenging.

Are you an average American? 

The vast majority of the people on this forum live a higher standard of living, a higher level of education, and a higher amount of wealth than the average American.

(I'd be ME over a 1916 billionaire; but I don't want to be average right now.)

Caoineag

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Denver
    • My Journal
Re: Would you rather be a billionaire in 1916, or an average American today?
« Reply #149 on: December 20, 2017, 08:42:47 AM »
Average american today.

I like my life.  As an average American, I have a lot at my disposable because of technology that no money in 1916 could have afforded.

Even asking this question about the 1950s billionaire vs today's average American would be challenging.

Are you an average American? 

The vast majority of the people on this forum live a higher standard of living, a higher level of education, and a higher amount of wealth than the average American.

(I'd be ME over a 1916 billionaire; but I don't want to be average right now.)

That's what I don't understand about this thread and the majority choosing the billionaire. We all think being an average American is a step down from our current life but somehow the majority think that taking several steps down in living standard is okay if they have a lot of money in comparison to everyone else. Hunh? I don't want to be an average American, I prefer to be me and have my life. But if I have to choose to downgrade one level or downgrade multiple levels with money, I choose one level downgrade.

I think the issue must be that I value knowledge/information, food diversity, medical advances and technology more than the majority. What's the point in having money if it can't buy me the things I want?