*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

So what if B gets out of the hospital and gets hit by lightening. Now he can barely afford to pay his first bill and has to sell his house to pay his second one. Meanwhile A is living the high life and sleeping with supermodels. Tough shit?

Yes. A is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to pay for B's misfortune. Forcing A to pay for B's misfortune is theft.

If every time I point out an inequality arising through no fault of a person's own, you call that defining them as a victim as if that's some artificial construct I've come up with, then you must believe there is no such thing as good or bad luck in terms of people's salaries.

What I said was: "...your first inclination is to define B as a victim." You seem to misunderstand what I mean, so I'll clarify: My first inclination is to assume that he's strong enough as a human being to overcome his hardships (which can include accepting charity given voluntarily from A or some other party) and achieve his potential, whatever that may be after his hardships, in spite of those hardships. One consequence of that is that I don't believe we need to force someone at gunpoint to give what they have to B just because he has been unlucky (ie: theft). This is what I mean as opposed to defining B as a victim (not to be confused with saying he wasn't a victim of some terrible shit that happened).

Further, if B had any kind of bad luck that caused him to have a lower earning potential than A, all other things being equal in terms of talent, abilities, hard work, etc., then what difference does it make what you label that? It's bad luck and has nothing to do with 'deserving' anything.

Regarding the bold, I just want to reiterate that the difference isn't in labeling what happened to him; it's a difference in labeling him as a person.