posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:36 AM
The fundamental flaw with the supposition of this thread is how it "cherry-picks" the statistics to make a point. (A technique I've witnessed
before here.) By saying 30% are opposed, it deflects attention from the 70% who are not. That is like the weatherman predicting a 30% chance it will
not rain as opposed to a 70% chance it might.
Further, It seems to me (especially in the cases of athletes) that their careers often have a shorter lifespan of earning potential while they are at
the "top of their game" in peak physical condition, young and less prone to injury. Or in the case of actors, less popular/appealing, or in demand.
( As opposed to say a plumber or accountant whose career and income earning potential might span 20 - 30 years.)
Finally, I personally have no issues with pay based on performance/talent or what some deem exorbitant salaries. Life is not a zero-sum game.
Their success will not diminish the odds of yours.
Oh and to dodge a sniper:
Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by kinda kurious
Just more combative personal crap.
It seems that's all you are capable of contributing.
Onoes, I'm sorry. I was under the impression you enjoyed dining on trolls as evidenced by your moniker. I suspect you've never encountered one who
can bite back. Check please.
(Some might misconstrue tough questions with combativeness which seems fair game considering the recently redefined guidelines.) Vigorous debate
should be expected in a conspiracy discussion forum.
Edited to fix typos, add barf.
[edit on 30-3-2009 by kinda kurious]