Equality

[henry quirk]

Equality of opportunities.

Agreed. NOT "equality of outcome."

neither

there can be no guarantee of outcome or opportunity for some without regulatin' the outcomes or opportunities of all

no, equality is only meaningful as created equal

that is: Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

in other words: you don't have to hire Joe, but you don't get to pack him in a cattle car and send him to the camp just cuz he is a crippled idiot

How are these two, supposedly, 'created equal' when one is, so called, a "vigorous smarty-pants" and the other is a, so called, "crippled idiot"?

If they are both 'created equal', then they would BOTH be the exact same equal 'thing', which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS what you say they ARE.

If one is, and as such created as a, "crippled idiot" and the other is, and as such created as a, "vigorous smarty pants", then HOW EXACTLY are they, supposedly, 'created equal'?

Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

[Gary Childress]

Equality of opportunities.

Agreed. NOT "equality of outcome."

neither

there can be no guarantee of outcome or opportunity for some without regulatin' the outcomes or opportunities of all

no, equality is only meaningful as created equal

that is: Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

in other words: you don't have to hire Joe, but you don't get to pack him in a cattle car and send him to the camp just cuz he is a crippled idiot

How are these two, supposedly, 'created equal' when one is, so called, a "vigorous smarty-pants" and the other is a, so called, "crippled idiot"?

If they are both 'created equal', then they would BOTH be the exact same equal 'thing', which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS what you say they ARE.

If one is, and as such created as a, "crippled idiot" and the other is, and as such created as a, "vigorous smarty pants", then HOW EXACTLY are they, supposedly, 'created equal'?

Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

You don't get to pack Joe in a cattle car, however, can you just leave him along the roadside to languish and die from his own disabilities?

BTW, I think Age makes a valid point about the term "created equal" in this sense. Perhaps being "no less a person" and a couple of bucks might buy a person some green tea at Starbucks, but otherwise, the term "no less a person" doesn't sound like all that substantial of an attribute.

[henry quirk]

can you just leave him along the roadside to languish and die from his own disabilities?

I'm sure he'd welcome your assist, gary

mebbe you can take him home, take care of him


otherwise, the term "no less a person" doesn't sound like all that substantial of an attribute.

so: being a person is merely an attribute, and not a particularly weighty one

okeedoke

[Gary Childress]

can you just leave him along the roadside to languish and die from his own disabilities?

I'm sure he'd welcome your assist, gary

mebbe you can take him home, take care of him

Well, I'd rather have medicare or some kind of state welfare program take care of it. I don't know of many people who would take strangers into their own homes. In fact, I've known of a couple people through friends who got murdered doing something like that.

otherwise, the term "no less a person" doesn't sound like all that substantial of an attribute.

so: being a person is merely an attribute, and not a particularly weighty one

okeedoke

Well if he's going to be left by the roadside because he can't take care of himself, then what does "no less a person" amount to? He's apparently not equal in ablities to the "smarty pants" guy. I suppose he ought to be equal under the law. So maybe that's something going for him. But as far as the rest, do we give him a pat on the back when we leave him by the road side and say, "cheer up, Joe, you're no less a person" as we drop him there?

[henry quirk]

Well, I'd rather have medicare or some kind of state welfare program take care of it.

well of course you do, gary

why foot the bill yourself when you have everyone else do it?


do we give him a pat on the back when we leave him by the road side and say, "cheer up, Joe, you're no less a person" as we drop him there?

pretty dismal scenario, gary...I can see it bothers you...so: you'll be bringin' him home with you, yeah?

[Impenitent]

didn't jesus say to construct a leviathan to ease your liberal conscious?

-Imp

[henry quirk]

didn't jesus say to construct a leviathan to ease your liberal conscious?

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

Well, I'd rather have medicare or some kind of state welfare program take care of it.

well of course you do, gary

why foot the bill yourself when you have everyone else do it?

Absolutely. If his only alternative is going to be pan-handling on the street corner for a living, then it shouldn't be up to any particular person to take him in. Like I say, that can be dangerous in some cases. It's more of a collective responsibility for a community as a whole to help the downtrodden out. It shouldn't be up to any single person, otherwise, I don't see how it would get done.

do we give him a pat on the back when we leave him by the road side and say, "cheer up, Joe, you're no less a person" as we drop him there?

pretty dismal scenario, gary...I can see it bothers you...so: you'll be bringin' him home with you, yeah?

No. I'm not going to bring him home with me anymore than you are. But he needs a place to stay. It is a dismal scenario for Joe if he's crippled. If you don't have any community services, and if he can't get a job that will afford him a living because of his handicap, what's he supposed to do? Or what about the elderly who are too old for gainful employement and don't have kids to take care of them in old age? What happens to them when they can't take care of themselves? Who takes them in?

[henry quirk]

Absolutely. If his only alternative is going to be pan-handling on the street corner for a living, then it shouldn't be up to any particular person to take him in.

then get him to a shelter, a charity, a church and keep your mitts offa my cash


No. I'm not going to bring him home with me anymore than you are.

If you don't have any community services, and if he can't get a job that will afford him a living because of his handicap, what's he supposed to do? Or what about the elderly who are too old for gainful employement and don't have kids to take care of them in old age? What happens to them when they can't take care of themselves? Who takes them in?

you mean to say: cuz some folks can't meet their needs (and you're not willin' to put your money where your mouth is) other folks ought to pitch in (whether they want to or not).

words that come to mind: hypocrite, slaver...you, comfortable forcin' others to do what you yourself won't.

[commonsense]

Equality of opportunities.

Agreed. NOT "equality of outcome."

neither

there can be no guarantee of outcome or opportunity for some without regulatin' the outcomes or opportunities of all

no, equality is only meaningful as created equal

that is: Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

in other words: you don't have to hire Joe, but you don't get to pack him in a cattle car and send him to the camp just cuz he is a crippled idiot

How are these two, supposedly, 'created equal' when one is, so called, a "vigorous smarty-pants" and the other is a, so called, "crippled idiot"?

If they are both 'created equal', then they would BOTH be the exact same equal 'thing', which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS what you say they ARE.

If one is, and as such created as a, "crippled idiot" and the other is, and as such created as a, "vigorous smarty pants", then HOW EXACTLY are they, supposedly, 'created equal'?

Both were born with all the characteristics of a future vigorous smarty pants, but Joe was in a motorcycle accident without wearing a helmet. As a result, Joe’s brain was damaged and his body was crippled.

I think both Joe & Stan are incidental to the argument anyway. Let’s just say that opportunity doesn’t equal outcome.

[Nick_A]

Alexis de Tocqueville
Equality is one of these words people use without realizing that their are two distinct paths to two different meanings. The first is the liberal path towards social justice making people equal in servtude. The conservative definition strives for equality in liberty or equality under the law.

When you read or hear the word "equality," do you associate it with liberty, servitude or something else?

Do we really want equality either of opportunity or outcome or does it just sound good for a society to argue it as in the debate over entitlements. Are their equality of entitlements or are they decided by characteristics such as skin color and sex?

As I understand it the most powerful societal motive is prestige and equality nullifies prestige.

John Adams wrote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We are educated so who needs the religious and moral influence? What sort of education deals with the problem of prestige other than religious influence?

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

Equality for the truly religious person as Siumone describes is the recognition that we are out of balance as some would call sinners. So it is silly for one idiot to call another idiot, an idiot, if we are all idiots. We share the equality and human diversity of idiotism. Obviously this is insulting and unacceptable. People have been killed for less. But without being a slave to prestige, the question of justice vs mercy would resolve itself. But the sad truth is that society as a whole is now incapable of it.

Last edited by Nick_A on Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[henry quirk]

Do we really want equality either of opportunity or outcome

sensibly, no

to court either is to court the leash


or does it just sound good for a society to argue it as in the debate over entitlements.

excellent observation

they call it virtue signalin' nowadays; when I was growin' up it was called bein' holier than thou

swollen chest, proud cluckin', perfectly willin' to supervise or direct the other guy


As I understand it the most powerful societal motive is prestige and equality nullifies prestige.

all men are created equal but some men are just a touch more equal than the rest: might be the credo of the high & mighty

you know, the ones who shake & move (on Epstein's Island)


John Adams wrote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

he left out commonsensical

[Age]

Also, what has money or wealth got to do with 'equality' at all?

Well, presumably having equal economic opportunity, as well as equal economic outcome (if people want to go that far), involves wealth redistribution.

While 'you', adult human beings, remain the greedy little pests that you are, then there will NEVER be 'equal' economic opportunity nor 'equal' economic outcome. So, to even imagine there could be is just a complete waste of time.

Now, the topic of 'equality', itself, has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with money nor wealth.

That economics, money, and/or wealth gets brought into a discussion about 'equality' just shows more evidence and reveals more PROOF of just how 'greedy' 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ARE.

In the end it sort of boils down to money.

These words coming, literally, from the mouths of an adult human bein were BELIEVED to be ABSOLUTELY True, by just about EVERY adult human being, in the days of when this is being written.

To them, just absolutely EVERY thing " boiled down to 'money' ".

The third root of all evil, which is causing their downfall, is their 'love of money', but sadly and unfortunately they still can NOT see this. As they are BLINDED by their OWN BELIEFS.

If someone has a lot more money than another person, then they aren't very equal.

But HOW are 'they' NOT equal?

What you are saying here is; " A 'person' IS 'what they have' ". You could also say if someone has a lot more bread than another person, they are not very equal. Or, if someone has a lot more rice than another person, then they are not very equal. And this could also apply with shoes, clothes, cars, airplanes, toothbrushes, pets, children, hairbrushes, and/or hair clips, as well as absolutely any thing else.

But what, I hope, can be CLEARLY SEEN now is that NONE of this has absolutely anything to do with 'equality', itself.

People are NOT 'unequal' because of what they own nor have. People are 'unequal' because adult human beings judge, class, and/or separate people into 'unequal' groups or categories.

What 'you', adult human beings, FORGET or MISS is that 'you' are ALL 'human beings', with just varying degrees of different thoughts and thinking. You are ALL conceived 'equal' of sperm and egg. You all start out 'equal' in the womb. You are, therefore, ALL born equal. And, you ALL grow up 'equally', just in completely different and varied ways, which is WHY you ALL have varying degrees of different thoughts and thinking.

What 'you' ALL essentially ARE is the thoughts and thinking within a 'different' body, but 'you' are ALL 'equal' in that 'you' ARE because of what the body has experienced. You are ALL 'equally' 'different' because you ALL grow up in different times and in different places. No two people have had nor could have the exact same experiences. So, this is why you are ALL 'equally' the 'same' AND 'different'.

Now, there is far more to substantiate and support this claim, which I will NOT go into now, unless of course ANY one shows any REAL INTEREST in this.

OTOH, if you're talking about equality before the law, then theoretically, no, money shouldn't play a role, however, in practice wealth tends to pay for better lawyers.

What has 'law' got to do with 'equality'?

You appear to really have a very narrowed and short view of 'equality', itself.

'Equality', itself, has just about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with how 'you', human beings, live in the days of when this is being written. 'Equality' is about ALL, at ALL times.

[Age]

Equality of opportunities.

Agreed. NOT "equality of outcome."

neither

there can be no guarantee of outcome or opportunity for some without regulatin' the outcomes or opportunities of all

no, equality is only meaningful as created equal

that is: Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

in other words: you don't have to hire Joe, but you don't get to pack him in a cattle car and send him to the camp just cuz he is a crippled idiot

How are these two, supposedly, 'created equal' when one is, so called, a "vigorous smarty-pants" and the other is a, so called, "crippled idiot"?

If they are both 'created equal', then they would BOTH be the exact same equal 'thing', which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS what you say they ARE.

If one is, and as such created as a, "crippled idiot" and the other is, and as such created as a, "vigorous smarty pants", then HOW EXACTLY are they, supposedly, 'created equal'?

Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

OF COURSE NO person is more than NOR less than another person. That is; UNTIL they are labelled as such, just as you have done here and above.

"joe" is NOT a, so called, "crippled idiot" just as "stan" is NOT a, so called, "vigorous smarty-pants". These labels are just your very OWN views and perspective of things.

To me, "joe" is just the name given to that 'one', human being, who happens to not be able to walk, and which the human being labeled and known as "henry quirk" classes as and so sees as a "crippled idiot". And, "stan" is just the name or label given to that 'one', human being, who the 'one', known as "henry quirk" judges and calls a "vigorous smarty-pants".

OBVIOUSLY it is IMPOSSIBLE for a 'person' to be a "crippled idiot" nor to be a "vigorous smarty-pants". This is because of what a 'person' REALLY IS.

[Age]

Equality of opportunities.

Agreed. NOT "equality of outcome."

neither

there can be no guarantee of outcome or opportunity for some without regulatin' the outcomes or opportunities of all

no, equality is only meaningful as created equal

that is: Joe, the crippled idiot is no less a person than Stan, the vigorous smarty-pants

in other words: you don't have to hire Joe, but you don't get to pack him in a cattle car and send him to the camp just cuz he is a crippled idiot

How are these two, supposedly, 'created equal' when one is, so called, a "vigorous smarty-pants" and the other is a, so called, "crippled idiot"?

If they are both 'created equal', then they would BOTH be the exact same equal 'thing', which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS what you say they ARE.

If one is, and as such created as a, "crippled idiot" and the other is, and as such created as a, "vigorous smarty pants", then HOW EXACTLY are they, supposedly, 'created equal'?

Both were born with all the characteristics of a future vigorous smarty pants, but Joe was in a motorcycle accident without wearing a helmet. As a result, Joe’s brain was damaged and his body was crippled.

Or, "joe" could have been forced to go to war to protect and "save" "others" and was fired upon and injured. Or, "joe" could have been born this way. Or, there could have been countless other scenarios.

I think both Joe & Stan are incidental to the argument anyway.

So, why then bring them up here now?

Let’s just say that opportunity doesn’t equal outcome.

We could say this, but WHY?

What has 'opportunity' and/or 'outcome' got to do with 'equality', EXACTLY, anyway?

Let us consider WHY human beings, in the days of when this is being written, have turned the discussion of 'equality' into a discussion about 'opportunity' and/or 'outcome' in relation to money or wealth?

Obviously money AND wealth are COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY things in Life, Itself, and so they would have ABSOLUTELY NO actual bearing on 'Equality', Itself.