|
On September 28 2015 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 00:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 27 2015 20:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 15:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 27 2015 11:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 10:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 27 2015 10:37 Buckyman wrote:
The middle class is economically important because they have a significant amount of disposable income but are also numerous enough to mass-market to. Again, you have an assumption that "middle class" has a specific amount of income available to them. Middle class is the middle of the bell curve. They exist no matter how little disposable income is available. I think it's both on a relative scale and on an absolute scale, the latter occurring when families start to realize that they can't afford as much as they used to be able to, need to make cuts in their spending, etc. You're also assuming that there's necessarily a nice bell curve all the time when it comes to family income, and so even on a relative scale, as skewing to the right starts to occur, more people would be more likely to feel poor. The shape of the curve is irrelevant in my example, as all curves have a "middle." "Feel poor" is a relative term because people compare themselves to others in their group to determine what they are. You're literally just repeating what I'm saying now lol. I said exactly that... that feeling poor is on a relative scale. You're not accounting for the absolute scale though... you keep ignoring that part. I'm not sure why you think that all curves have as large of a middle as all other curves. The shape does matter in this discussion. Different distribution curves can lead to different absolute (and relative) personal conclusions drawn by the individual subjects, based on how they see themselves in the overall curve... as well as different statistical conclusions drawn by researchers. Here's a skewed right distribution, which could indicate what the spread of family income might look like if the middle class doesn't increase in wealth as quickly as the upper class (and so the middle class starts to slide down to the left): http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~ajw13/stat200_notes/01_turning/graphics/skew_3.gif Even if the families at the median have a 50/50 shot of finding a family less wealthy, notice that they're going to be closer in wealth to the less wealthy families than the rich ones, because the distribution is stacked more on the left (poor) side than the right (rich). And so they're going to identify more closely with the struggles of the poor person than with the luxuries of the rich, because the mode (most frequent earnings) has decreased and pushed to the left from a normal curve like this one: http://revisionworld.com/sites/revisionworld.com/files/imce/Distri1.gif But here's what you're not understanding. That graph you're showing is meaningless in discussing the perceptions of people. I disagree, because on a relative scale, when you compare yourselves to those around you, your perception depends on how other people are doing financially. It's as simple as that. If the financial stability of other families start to change, your relation to them will start to change too. You seem to be assuming that no one else's change in wealth matters when people form an opinion of their own wealth, and yet want to insist that it's all relative. These two points are fundamentally at odds with each other. For example, if you make $100/ day and are around 10 people who make $80/ day and 10 other people who make $120/ day, you'd naturally think you're in the middle (because you're the median, and your income actually is the mean). On the other hand, if you make $100/ day and are around 10 people who make $80/ day, 5 people who make $150/ day, and 5 other people who make $200+/day, it's far less likely to feel like you're right in the middle, because you're at the median still, but the mean is much higher. You may identify more closely with that bottom set of 10 people, because your earnings are closer to that group than anyone way higher. This is what it means to view skewed data relatively as a subject, as opposed to viewing normally distributed data. Show nested quote +Lets take a real world example. You're at the grocery aisle, you see four people and you. Where in the graph do those people land? The answer is that you have no fucking clue. Same with if you're walking back to your car and you see 10 people walking back to their car and 10 people walking to the store from their car. That graph is invisible. So people simple have their immediate perceptions. If they know people who are poorer than them, and if they know people who are richer than them, then they will feel middle class. And it doesn't matter if they live in slums or if they live in mansions. If a person lives in a vacuum of ignorance and has no idea what anyone else's financial situation, what the average cost of living is, how much his employees or friends or colleagues make, how much he should be making, and hasn't ever looked up any information on general salaries or costs... then I think your argument makes sense. But just because I don't know how rich a particular other customer at the store is doesn't mean I can't have a more accurate idea of where I fall in the broader spectrum of financial comfort, because there are far more contexts and environments in my day-to-day experiences that grant me more information. I think it's rather circular to say that if someone has no relative knowledge of something, their relative opinion will be ignorant. Show nested quote +So when you turn on the TV, and you see the media talking about "the middle class" EVERYONE feels like its talking about them. CEO's feel that, welfare folks feel that, everyone feels that. And so they feel connected to that idea, to that perception of the idea of the middle class experience. If the person themselves have either a large amount of actual money or is in a state of poverty--that is when they start throwing around arbitrary words like "upper" or "lower" middle class as if it means anything since they don't actually know where in the graph they are. I don't think so, at all. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics about this statement you're making, because speaking anecdotally, I work with some really, really rich families and I also work some really, really impoverished families, and while both groups may act certain ways or do things differently, when I've talked to both groups about how they think they measure up financially, both groups tend to be relatively aware at how they stack up against the country. The millionaire families I've worked with recognize that they're in the top 1% (or damn close), and the impoverished families who can't make ends meet know that most people in the country don't have it quite as bad as they do. Neither group considers themselves in the middle class, especially when they compare their financial situation to actual national data. I don't think they're particularly oblivious if they have some general knowledge. It would certainly be useful to have stronger definitions of what constitutes upper/ middle/ lower class, and surely subjectivity is always going to be an issue unless we set up hard mathematical intervals and say something like "upper/ middle/ lower = thirds of the population" or "middle class = middle 50% (IQR) of the population while lower and upper constitute the bottom and top quartiles respectively" or something like that.
In my line of work where I have to manage and handle compensation discussions with people all across the US => Everyone's definition of standard of living or normal wage is the most inconsistent thing there is. Where half a million a year is middle class by some and impossible to reach by others in the same education and responsibility bracket applying to the same jobs. And that's not even counting spending habits and different tax brackets.
I know someone with multiple cars and massive house who only makes 20k a year because he's very frugal. I also know someone who makes 80k a year who can barely afford rent and his little to show for because his spending habits are so bad. If you were to just glance at their property, their stuff, and their "standard of living" you would think the guy with a 6 room house and 3 cars was the one making more money; but he's not. The guy living in an apartment with no car and few things in the room outside of his laptop and books--he's the one who makes four times more than the house owner.
Its just not that simple to "know" by looking around you how much people make because how much people have and how much they make are not correlated truths.
|
Well next time we evaluate someone's wealth solely on the size of their house and how many cars they have you might have a point. Never mind about where the house is, what kind of car it is, or any of those considerations.
"Spending habits" are a sign of affluence. If you are going out to the bar 3 nights a week and dropping a couple hundred dollars you are going to be noticed more readily than the frugal recluse who stays in his giant house out in the sticks all day.
But you seem to be missing the point that there are multiple ways to know how much "people around you make" without actually knowing how much this person makes. And the original argument was about the economic importance of a "middle class" which was defined vis a vis their ability to spend money on non-essentials while also not owning significant amounts of capital outside their modest homes.
|
On September 28 2015 02:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2015 00:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 27 2015 20:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 15:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 27 2015 11:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 10:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 27 2015 10:37 Buckyman wrote:
The middle class is economically important because they have a significant amount of disposable income but are also numerous enough to mass-market to. Again, you have an assumption that "middle class" has a specific amount of income available to them. Middle class is the middle of the bell curve. They exist no matter how little disposable income is available. I think it's both on a relative scale and on an absolute scale, the latter occurring when families start to realize that they can't afford as much as they used to be able to, need to make cuts in their spending, etc. You're also assuming that there's necessarily a nice bell curve all the time when it comes to family income, and so even on a relative scale, as skewing to the right starts to occur, more people would be more likely to feel poor. The shape of the curve is irrelevant in my example, as all curves have a "middle." "Feel poor" is a relative term because people compare themselves to others in their group to determine what they are. You're literally just repeating what I'm saying now lol. I said exactly that... that feeling poor is on a relative scale. You're not accounting for the absolute scale though... you keep ignoring that part. I'm not sure why you think that all curves have as large of a middle as all other curves. The shape does matter in this discussion. Different distribution curves can lead to different absolute (and relative) personal conclusions drawn by the individual subjects, based on how they see themselves in the overall curve... as well as different statistical conclusions drawn by researchers. Here's a skewed right distribution, which could indicate what the spread of family income might look like if the middle class doesn't increase in wealth as quickly as the upper class (and so the middle class starts to slide down to the left): http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~ajw13/stat200_notes/01_turning/graphics/skew_3.gif Even if the families at the median have a 50/50 shot of finding a family less wealthy, notice that they're going to be closer in wealth to the less wealthy families than the rich ones, because the distribution is stacked more on the left (poor) side than the right (rich). And so they're going to identify more closely with the struggles of the poor person than with the luxuries of the rich, because the mode (most frequent earnings) has decreased and pushed to the left from a normal curve like this one: http://revisionworld.com/sites/revisionworld.com/files/imce/Distri1.gif But here's what you're not understanding. That graph you're showing is meaningless in discussing the perceptions of people. I disagree, because on a relative scale, when you compare yourselves to those around you, your perception depends on how other people are doing financially. It's as simple as that. If the financial stability of other families start to change, your relation to them will start to change too. You seem to be assuming that no one else's change in wealth matters when people form an opinion of their own wealth, and yet want to insist that it's all relative. These two points are fundamentally at odds with each other. For example, if you make $100/ day and are around 10 people who make $80/ day and 10 other people who make $120/ day, you'd naturally think you're in the middle (because you're the median, and your income actually is the mean). On the other hand, if you make $100/ day and are around 10 people who make $80/ day, 5 people who make $150/ day, and 5 other people who make $200+/day, it's far less likely to feel like you're right in the middle, because you're at the median still, but the mean is much higher. You may identify more closely with that bottom set of 10 people, because your earnings are closer to that group than anyone way higher. This is what it means to view skewed data relatively as a subject, as opposed to viewing normally distributed data. Lets take a real world example. You're at the grocery aisle, you see four people and you. Where in the graph do those people land? The answer is that you have no fucking clue. Same with if you're walking back to your car and you see 10 people walking back to their car and 10 people walking to the store from their car. That graph is invisible. So people simple have their immediate perceptions. If they know people who are poorer than them, and if they know people who are richer than them, then they will feel middle class. And it doesn't matter if they live in slums or if they live in mansions. If a person lives in a vacuum of ignorance and has no idea what anyone else's financial situation, what the average cost of living is, how much his employees or friends or colleagues make, how much he should be making, and hasn't ever looked up any information on general salaries or costs... then I think your argument makes sense. But just because I don't know how rich a particular other customer at the store is doesn't mean I can't have a more accurate idea of where I fall in the broader spectrum of financial comfort, because there are far more contexts and environments in my day-to-day experiences that grant me more information. I think it's rather circular to say that if someone has no relative knowledge of something, their relative opinion will be ignorant. So when you turn on the TV, and you see the media talking about "the middle class" EVERYONE feels like its talking about them. CEO's feel that, welfare folks feel that, everyone feels that. And so they feel connected to that idea, to that perception of the idea of the middle class experience. If the person themselves have either a large amount of actual money or is in a state of poverty--that is when they start throwing around arbitrary words like "upper" or "lower" middle class as if it means anything since they don't actually know where in the graph they are. I don't think so, at all. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics about this statement you're making, because speaking anecdotally, I work with some really, really rich families and I also work some really, really impoverished families, and while both groups may act certain ways or do things differently, when I've talked to both groups about how they think they measure up financially, both groups tend to be relatively aware at how they stack up against the country. The millionaire families I've worked with recognize that they're in the top 1% (or damn close), and the impoverished families who can't make ends meet know that most people in the country don't have it quite as bad as they do. Neither group considers themselves in the middle class, especially when they compare their financial situation to actual national data. I don't think they're particularly oblivious if they have some general knowledge. It would certainly be useful to have stronger definitions of what constitutes upper/ middle/ lower class, and surely subjectivity is always going to be an issue unless we set up hard mathematical intervals and say something like "upper/ middle/ lower = thirds of the population" or "middle class = middle 50% (IQR) of the population while lower and upper constitute the bottom and top quartiles respectively" or something like that. In my line of work where I have to manage and handle compensation discussions with people all across the US => Everyone's definition of standard of living or normal wage is the most inconsistent thing there is. Where half a million a year is middle class by some and impossible to reach by others in the same education and responsibility bracket applying to the same jobs. And that's not even counting spending habits and different tax brackets. I know someone with multiple cars and massive house who only makes 20k a year because he's very frugal. I also know someone who makes 80k a year who can barely afford rent and his little to show for because his spending habits are so bad. If you were to just glance at their property, their stuff, and their "standard of living" you would think the guy with a 6 room house and 3 cars was the one making more money; but he's not. The guy living in an apartment with no car and few things in the room outside of his laptop and books--he's the one who makes four times more than the house owner. Its just not that simple to "know" by looking around you how much people make because how much people have and how much they make are not correlated truths.
I agree with you that merely having a few cars doesn't dictate one's standard of living, and that frugality and other personal choices certainly adds to ambiguity and/ or relative perspective, so I think we should define what we're particularly talking about. I was talking about specifically how much money a person makes in a year, in comparison to what the standard cost of living is in their area, to figure out how their salary measures up to other salaries in the area (a sort of evaluation as to whether or not their salary is statistically seen as a low/ medium/ high income salary, as a stand-alone, single variable). I chose this metric because this way, everyone could potentially look at and compare numbers to see where they fall strictly on yearly income.
If I understand your perspective correctly, you're approaching it from the idea of trying to involve many other variables, including budgeting/ personal financial decisions (being frugal, being more loose with money, etc.) and particular valuables they already own (house, car, etc.). Obviously, this adds a lot more context and personalizes the family's feelings more (as it contributes to their overall wealth), and seems more sensible in your line of work. The reason why I chose to not account for all of those other things- and to focus on one variable (income)- is because I understood the original question and initial responses from other posters were regarding how income can specifically affect people's perspective, not income + additional bells and whistles (which could confound the original point). For example, the original question by whatisthisasheep made a stark comparison between "billionaires and homeless people", which I took to mean "people making a ton of money vs. people making basically no money", and so my focus was on the money.
So maybe we're just arguing semantics and defining/ using "the middle class" differently. Thoughts?
|
On September 27 2015 19:11 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 14:55 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On September 27 2015 13:32 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2015 13:11 Epishade wrote:
If I drive my space ship 10ft away from a black hole's event horizon and turn on the headlights, what do I appear to see? Is your spaceship magic? I'm going to go with your whole life flashing before your eyes. I read somewhere that if the black hole is small enough or has some event horizon ratio of something It won't necessarily rip you apart (thinking about it actually I think it was a huge black hole with a small gravitational force). I really have no idea though That sounds like a really weird idea. Do you have any sources for that? Usually, the size of the event horizon is directly related to the mass of the black hole. And really small black holes are not stable and just kind of evaporate. As for the original question, that is really interesting and sadly i don't know enough of general relativity to answer the question reasonably well. My guess would be "Something behind the black hole distorted by a lense effect", but i am really not certain about that. Or of course the lazy answer "The really bright shine of the accredition disc", which should be all around you at that point. Black holes are usually surprisingly shiny due to their accredition discs.
I'll see if I can find it.
found it in the Neil Degrasse Tyson article thing Death by black whole. I was on the right track but completely wrong. large black holes won't necessarily tear you apart before entering the event horizon.
"as a black hole eats, its diameter grows in direct proportion to its mass. if, for example, a black hole eats enough to triple its mass then it will have grown to be three times as wide. for this reason black holes in the universe can be almost any size, but not all of them will spaghetti you before you can cross the event horizon. Only small ones will do that. Why? for a graphic, spectacular death all that matters is the tidal force. in general the tidal force on you is greatest if your size is large compared with your distance to the center of the object."
prob should have looked it up last night but I was too lazy. sry for the confusion
of course I could be applying it wrong and don't really know much about black holes. (I had to Wikipedia what the heck an event horizon was.)
if we're talking 10 feet from the center of the black hole then I'm pretty sure that's impossible.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
If you sign a pre nup before marriage then start co mingling assets after marriage (joint checking accounts, co-owning a house, etc) does it nullify the prenup?
|
United States43989 Posts
On September 28 2015 10:10 whatisthisasheep wrote:
If you sign a pre nup before marriage then start co mingling assets after marriage (joint checking accounts, co-owning a house, etc) does it nullify the prenup?
Law varies between states and function varies between prenups.
|
On September 27 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 13:11 Epishade wrote:
If I drive my space ship 10ft away from a black hole's event horizon and turn on the headlights, what do I appear to see? You'd see whatever is in front of you. Which most likely will be mostly empty space and then a black hole. So not much to take photos off. The event horizon isn't some magical boundary that you can see, it's only the point of no return. A sensible society would put a sign saying "last exit before spaghettification" or something though.
you'd also be amidst a superheated accretion disk going at relativistic speed, emetting all sort of particles among the most energetic that could possibly exist in the universe. I'd say the spaghettification of any kind of mater that was formerly known as "you" happens way before the horizon
|
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland?
|
On September 28 2015 20:49 oGoZenob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:On September 27 2015 13:11 Epishade wrote:
If I drive my space ship 10ft away from a black hole's event horizon and turn on the headlights, what do I appear to see? You'd see whatever is in front of you. Which most likely will be mostly empty space and then a black hole. So not much to take photos off. The event horizon isn't some magical boundary that you can see, it's only the point of no return. A sensible society would put a sign saying "last exit before spaghettification" or something though. you'd also be amidst a superheated accretion disk going at relativistic speed, emetting all sort of particles among the most energetic that could possibly exist in the universe. I'd say the spaghettification of any kind of mater that was formerly known as "you" happens way before the horizon
As mentioned above, one could survive to enter the event horizon without getting spaghettified, if the dark hole is massive enough. Of course, this would only prolong your death, as the fall into the true singularity is inevitable.
|
On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland?
The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all.
|
On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all.
Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you?
|
On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you?
Way, way better.
|
On September 29 2015 05:28 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you? Way, way better.
a.k.a. the alcoholism gene
|
On September 29 2015 06:55 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 05:28 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you? Way, way better. a.k.a. the alcoholism gene
a gene is a very precise and specific thing. It is not the same thing as a general tendency in character
|
On September 29 2015 06:55 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 05:28 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you? Way, way better. a.k.a. the alcoholism gene
No. Saying just "the alcoholism gene" (or "the intelligence gene", or "the violence gene") implies that this sole gene is sole responsible for us being alcoholic or not. Several major issues come from it :
-It means that we are entirely our genetic heritage, and our genetic heritage is ourselves. If you're a coke addict, it's in your genes. If you've a tendency to rape girls instead of accepting when one doesn't want to fuck with you, it's in your genes. If you beat your wife and plough your goat, it's in your genes. If you're a nice person, it's in your gene ; if you're affected by depression, it's in your genes, etc. This awfully wrong view of the world is not only completely ignorant, but it causes real damage when people with little knowledge of the way genetics work start to believe in things like "the behavior B gene". Then you see alcoholics who stop trying to fight because "I'm made for it". You see suicidary people never going out of depression because some idiot pseudoscientist told him/her that he/she had some gene that causes depression. Etc. There's a MAJOR nuance between "gene G is related in some way to behavior B" and "gene G causes behavior B, and you can't help it". There are genes that can cause precise, actual disease. Then it's okay to talk about the "disease D gene". But not with social behaviors, which are influenced by genes, but clearly not solely determined by them.
-As I just said, a genetic predisposition is just a predisposition and can mean absolutely nothing depending on one's behavior. Even talking about genetic predisposition asks for caution : if you take the case of the ALDH deficiency in the Asian people, you'll see that basically, when having an ALDH deficiency, you stand alcohol a lot worse (and I mean really a lot worse) than when you don't. Thus what would be logical to think is that people with ALDH deficiency will drink less, and thus have less risks of being affected by liver cancer. Well, funnily enough, that's not entirely true. People with heavy ALDH deficiency indeed have lower risks of liver cancer since they almost don't drink, but people with moderate ALDH deficiency have higher risks than normal to have a liver cancer, because the social attraction of alcohol makes them bypass their issues at standing it. See? Social behavior is more important than genes. And it is way safer, and more correct, talk about a genetic association between gene and behavior, than a genetic predisposition.
-It makes people less responsible. Ethical issue. When a society pays for alcoholic's treatment, you can't have every alcoholic going like "listen dude, I don't want your fucking treatment and care. You can't affect genetics anyways."
-Saying "alcoholism gene" is fundamentally wrong since it implies that you can also have either a "non-alcoholism gene" or no "alcoholism gene" at all. Well no, what every human on the planet probably has is a "alcohol gene" (I'm oversimplifying a lot here, in reality it's tons of genes whose proteins participate in the journey of alcohol in the body), and then everyone has two alleles of this gene. No, you don't have a "red hair gene" and a "blonde hair gene". It's the same gene(s).
-Even if we assume that genetics are the sole influence on us and our behaviors, we anyway know way too little about genetics to use the term "behavior B gene" as if we knew that there aren't other genes acting either in conjunction or in opposition with said genes.
I mean hell, read this instead of my badly written rant, it': decent enough : http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart.asp?articlekey=26119&page=1
|
Why do people want to win millions of dollars in a lottery? Every person I read about who has a won millions of dollars through the lottery has had their life go to shit.
|
On September 29 2015 08:09 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why do people want to win millions of dollars in a lottery? Every person I read about who has a won millions of dollars through the lottery has had their life go to shit.
Cuz people see the rich people who won their money not through lottery, and think that they didn't do shit to get that huge amount of money, and thus think that it's easy to live with a lot of money. They don't realize that what matters is not being fucking rich, it's the way from not-so-rich to fucking rich.
|
Why do so many pedophiles live in America when US laws are so strict against child molestation? I thought they would all be in Thailand, Phillipeans, Vietnam etc. where they have more lackadaisical policies.
|
On September 29 2015 12:24 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why do so many pedophiles live in America when US laws are so strict against child molestation? I thought they would all be in Thailand, Phillipeans, Vietnam etc. where they have more lackadaisical policies.
Hmm, my guess here is that :
-pedophiles are more likely to be discovered and prosecuted in the US than in small Asian countries, thus the numbers of pedophiles you get are not totally correct
-apart from the hyper-rich, "I'm a celebrity" class of pedophiles, most pedophiles probably don't have the money to move to Asia like that. It's also possible they have a job, a wife, etc. I mean you need a visa to stay long in an Asian country.
-Maybe American pedophiles aren't attracted to Asian children?
-I had another idea but forgot it ):
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
