4 ms·

"Choose your parents carefully" has got to be one of the most pessimistic and cynical perspectives in existence. Instead, you could say "treat your children we

"Choose your parents carefully" has got to be one of the most pessimistic and cynical perspectives in existence. Instead, you could say "treat your children well", which is basically the same thing, except a lot less selfish.

gnaritas 11y ago
How exactly is describing reality selfish?
- JakeTorrence 11y ago
  The difference in the views expressed is that one takes all of the blame for your circumstances and puts them on your parents, and the other is taking the responsibility of providing good circumstances for your children. In the end, the meaning is about the same, but the undertones are a bit different.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    The meaning isn't close to the same; talking about your children's well being has nothing to do with talking about your own well being. And saying your parents matter isn't blaming them, it's simply an accurate description of reality. Having rich parents vs having poor parents has far more to do with how you turn out than your own effort does[1], that is the reality of this world, like it or not. [1] http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
  - tjradcliffe 11y ago
    The meaning is not the same because it's very difficult for poor and less educated parents to give their children what rich and more educated parents give them. My kids went to a high school that had a considerable socio-economic range and I was fairly involved in some stuff there, and it was clear there were plenty of poorer, less educated parents who were working really hard to give their kids everything they needed, but it was almost impossibly difficult for them. This is not an argument against treating your children well, but the reality is that having parents who are well-off and educated buffers you against all kinds of mistakes and issues that would sink other kids. Moderating (not eliminating, which is neither possible nor desirable) social inequality is important precisely because we can say with as much certainty as we can say anything that there are kids out there today as talented and driven as Bill Gates who don't have anything like the resilient support system that he had, and without it they are likely going to be a drag on society rather than contributors to it.
nmrm2 11y ago
> treat your children well The point the author was making was that Bill Gates' parents were extremely wealthy and also very influential, which gave Gates a uniquely preparatory childhood, the means to make pretty much whatever risks he wanted, and easy access to capital (and the people behind it). Not everyone has that kind of influence and money to pass down to their children.
- adventured 11y ago
  I see it repeated frequently that Bill's parents were very or extremely wealthy. Where's the proof of that? His father was a prominent lawyer by the mid 1970s, yes. They were an upper class family, that is well known. As far as I'm aware, having read a lot about Bill Gates over the years, there isn't much evidence to stipulate just how wealthy they were. If his father earned a higher level lawyer salary in the 1960s, it does not necessarily mean great wealth had been accumulated. I'd argue it would be extremely unlikely at that point in time, as his father would have been merely 40 years old in 1965 when Gates was 10. Try accumulating "extreme" amounts of wealth in just a few years as a lawyer, it's nearly impossible. By the time Gates was 25, he was already richer than both of his parents combined.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    Sure, fine, they were "only" upper class. I'm not really sure what the appropriate response here is when Gates went to the best private schools. Anyways, influence is as important as wealth: Mary Maxwell was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the national board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC.
  - gexla 11y ago
    If they could afford 3 meals a day without ever having to skip a meal because of lack of money, then they were richer than most people on the planet. If they were middle-upper class in the U.S. - that's not extremely wealthy by U.S. standards but it's quite filthy most anywhere else. That's winning the birth lotto.

gnaritas 11y ago

How exactly is describing reality selfish?

JakeTorrence 11y ago
The difference in the views expressed is that one takes all of the blame for your circumstances and puts them on your parents, and the other is taking the responsibility of providing good circumstances for your children. In the end, the meaning is about the same, but the undertones are a bit different.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  The meaning isn't close to the same; talking about your children's well being has nothing to do with talking about your own well being. And saying your parents matter isn't blaming them, it's simply an accurate description of reality. Having rich parents vs having poor parents has far more to do with how you turn out than your own effort does[1], that is the reality of this world, like it or not. [1] http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
- tjradcliffe 11y ago
  The meaning is not the same because it's very difficult for poor and less educated parents to give their children what rich and more educated parents give them. My kids went to a high school that had a considerable socio-economic range and I was fairly involved in some stuff there, and it was clear there were plenty of poorer, less educated parents who were working really hard to give their kids everything they needed, but it was almost impossibly difficult for them. This is not an argument against treating your children well, but the reality is that having parents who are well-off and educated buffers you against all kinds of mistakes and issues that would sink other kids. Moderating (not eliminating, which is neither possible nor desirable) social inequality is important precisely because we can say with as much certainty as we can say anything that there are kids out there today as talented and driven as Bill Gates who don't have anything like the resilient support system that he had, and without it they are likely going to be a drag on society rather than contributors to it.

nmrm2 11y ago

> treat your children well The point the author was making was that Bill Gates' parents were extremely wealthy and also very influential, which gave Gates a uniquely preparatory childhood, the means to make pretty much whatever risks he wanted, and easy access to capital (and the people behind it). Not everyone has that kind of influence and money to pass down to their children.

adventured 11y ago
I see it repeated frequently that Bill's parents were very or extremely wealthy. Where's the proof of that? His father was a prominent lawyer by the mid 1970s, yes. They were an upper class family, that is well known. As far as I'm aware, having read a lot about Bill Gates over the years, there isn't much evidence to stipulate just how wealthy they were. If his father earned a higher level lawyer salary in the 1960s, it does not necessarily mean great wealth had been accumulated. I'd argue it would be extremely unlikely at that point in time, as his father would have been merely 40 years old in 1965 when Gates was 10. Try accumulating "extreme" amounts of wealth in just a few years as a lawyer, it's nearly impossible. By the time Gates was 25, he was already richer than both of his parents combined.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  Sure, fine, they were "only" upper class. I'm not really sure what the appropriate response here is when Gates went to the best private schools. Anyways, influence is as important as wealth: Mary Maxwell was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the national board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC.
- gexla 11y ago
  If they could afford 3 meals a day without ever having to skip a meal because of lack of money, then they were richer than most people on the planet. If they were middle-upper class in the U.S. - that's not extremely wealthy by U.S. standards but it's quite filthy most anywhere else. That's winning the birth lotto.