You're putting Rob on the spot, insulting his intelligence with that lame pretzel twist on what I wrote, and embarrassing yourself in the process.

I said nothing of the kind. What categories? What equivalence? I was describing an objective phenomenon, the filtering of a population by societal rules, that really should be obvious to even a twelve year old (come to think of it, especially 12year olds, because they've recently experienced how transition from the social system of elementary school to the social system of middle school has completely changed their lives and status. They went from being one-percenters in elementary school to being the gum on the bottom of an eighth-grader's shoe.).

The payoff for actually being able to think at such an abstract level is that it might occur to you that while it's difficult to judge the value of a realworld system by examining its rule book (something like Godel's Completeness Theorem gets in the way), you can quite handily judge any system by looking at the people who rise to the top 1% within that system.

Jackass. The "dictators in palaces" produced by one system compared to the "businessmen in mansions" produced by another system make it obvious even to a block of wood which one is superior.

Once again you've dumbed-down the conversation.

Why do I bother?