[Seil]

Let me explain that question in more detail - there are stereotypes of black people, white people, brown people, women, men, short people, tall people, whatever. Say we're talking about those who live in southern America, earn a lower than average yearly income and have little education; is this person a victim of circumstance, in that they are poor and poorly educated? Or do they make the choice to be that way?

As someone who thinks that it's the people rather than the circumstance they're born into, or that they find themselves in, I find it hard to defend. I could say that "Hey, there's scholarships availabe to help them out," or "They could go to school to find a better job," but that will fall flat on its face because of the circumstance in the southern States.

I think this is a "nature versus" nurture argument, but I'm curious. We can argue that a poor, black kid in the slums is there because of a lack of options due to circumstance, or he chooses to be there. Which is a flawed argument to begin with - choices are not the same for everyone due to everyone perceiving the choice differently due to different things in their lives. The same black kid might be failing school because he needs to care for his siblings while his parents are at work. It swings both ways.

I don't think I'm really commenting on society and social order because we look at others differently, from a first glance compared to knowing all the facts. Someone might rate higher on our ladder because they're trying to make things work while their neighbor is not.

Certainly nurture is a factor in that someone not go in to school if a parent or someone has not, but I think there's the nature factor where someone's ambition and their drive to change their situation result in what will happen in their lives. Also, this goes back to us perceiving people differently because of what they're doing rather than where they live/how much they earn.

I don't know.