Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

In fact, this is a very good subtopic.

(a) Why is “equality of outcome” a desired goal?

(b) Why is “equality of opportunity” not enough?

(c) How can “equality of outcome” be achieved, if we still imagine it’s desirable, without dragging everybody down to the lowest common level?

And below that:

(d) What belief would entitle us to advocate that “equality of outcome” is promised to us, or is even virtuous, given that hierarchy of values is universally evident?

(e) WHO is trying to get us to assume that “equality of outcome” is a virtuous and desirable goal? Whose interests are being served by us believing something that a) manifestly never happens in reality, and b) is not achievable without the complete destruction of all values?

(f) Is our assumption that there is something specifically “Christian” about “equality of outcome”? If so, what would the connection be? What proof could we summon that this is a “Christian” imperative? If it’s secular, what secular source could we cite to justify our claim that secularism requires us to aim at “equality of outcome”?

(g) I’ll bet these are things that most people who suppose “equality of outcome” to be a moral goal have never even entertained as problematic. But if not, what’s sponsoring their confidence in that goal?

(a) It's the fairest pursuit of all. You feel it. You know it. You fear it. You diminish, belittle it.

(b) Because it accumulates unfairness. Except in the case where (a) comes first.

(c) You start at the top and redistribute that to the 30% of families with child poverty in the UK. In child care and education. Including highest quality nutrition at school. You abolish income (not that they pay much) and all other tax that affects the 30%. And you tax the wealth from the top. You charge them back rent on the land they've occupied for up to a thousand years. All the added value that the taxpayer has paid for in 'farm' subsidies. To billionaires. To the old money. And the nouveau riche. Tax lifestyle from the top down. Tax private and corporate land, property, jets, yachts, Bugattis, jewelry, art. Make it a moral stench, which of course, it is. Private opulence in the face of public want is obscene. Evil. It all ends in land. Including rivers. Even if it's just a registered address. Tax it. Until it's free.

(d) The knowledge quality belief of its fairness.

(e) We are. It's in our genes. Along with less moral 'moral' imperatives. We're just blind to it until it's pointed out. Hiding in plain sight. Then it's obvious. Everybody's. (a) It doesn't ever happen because the masses never see it, the ruling class guarantee that. Including the Labour Party here, all centre left parties everywhere (b) What values? What's yours is mine and what's mine's me own? 'Tradition'?

(f) Not mine. I'm post-Christian. With a vengeance I'm afraid. It's so second rate and worse in so many ways. Social justice, like secularism, is rational and eusocial and utilitarian. It maximizes happiness, well being for all. It appeals to the better angels of our nature. We'd feel good about it. Righteous. Kind. Grateful above all. For each other. For the commonweal. Competing to co-operate. To create the greatest possible infrastructure for the many, not the few.

I should sleep on this and edit it, as I'm tired. So I won't.

And it's Morrisons.

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, this is a very good subtopic.

(a) Why is “equality of outcome” a desired goal?

(b) Why is “equality of opportunity” not enough?

(c) How can “equality of outcome” be achieved, if we still imagine it’s desirable, without dragging everybody down to the lowest common level?

And below that:

(d) What belief would entitle us to advocate that “equality of outcome” is promised to us, or is even virtuous, given that hierarchy of values is universally evident?

(e) WHO is trying to get us to assume that “equality of outcome” is a virtuous and desirable goal? Whose interests are being served by us believing something that a) manifestly never happens in reality, and b) is not achievable without the complete destruction of all values?

(f) Is our assumption that there is something specifically “Christian” about “equality of outcome”? If so, what would the connection be? What proof could we summon that this is a “Christian” imperative? If it’s secular, what secular source could we cite to justify our claim that secularism requires us to aim at “equality of outcome”?

(g) I’ll bet these are things that most people who suppose “equality of outcome” to be a moral goal have never even entertained as problematic. But if not, what’s sponsoring their confidence in that goal?

(a) It's the fairest pursuit of all. You feel it. You know it.

I don’t find that obvious. I see no reason to suppose the character outside Morrison’s is the level to which we should reduce you.

(b) Because it accumulates unfairness. Except in the case where (a) comes first.

Again, not at all obvious. What’s “unfair” about the guy at Morrison’s not getting to pull you down to his level?

(c) You start at the top and redistribute that to the 30% of families with child poverty in the UK.

I’m sorry — who, in specific, is meant by “you”? It’s clearly not me, and I must suppose it isn’t yourself, either. What mechanism are you granting the power to take 30% of your income and distribute it to the guy outside Morrison’s?

You abolish income (not that they pay much) and all other tax that affects the 30%. And you tax the wealth from the top. You charge them back rent on the land they've occupied for up to a thousand years. All the added value that the taxpayer has paid for in 'farm' subsidies. To billionaires. To the old money. And the nouveau riche. Tax lifestyle from the top down.

This “you,” of whom you speak — you’re giving him a lot of power, and completely trusting him to do the right thing. Doesn’t that worry you? And since you are decidedly in the 30% yourself, on a world scale, are you content to let him take your wages from you and redistribute them to the rest of the world? Or even to the guy outside Morrison’s?

(d) The knowledge quality belief of its fairness.

Again, this is not at all obvious. Secularly speaking, there’s nobody to tell us that we owe anybody “fairness,” whatever that is supposed to entail. And “equal” is not the same as “fair.” The guy outside Morrison’s getting the same income as you, even if he does not work and does do drugs, is only superficially “equal,”and is certainly “unfair.” He may need more than you, and he may deserve less; but nothing suggests sameness is the “just” distribution.

(e) We are. It's in our genes. Along with less moral 'moral' imperatives. We're just blind to it until it's pointed out. Hiding in plain sight. Then it's obvious. Everybody's. (a) It doesn't ever happen because the masses never see it, the ruling class guarantee that. Including the Labour Party here, all centre left parties everywhere (b) What values? What's yours is mine and what's mine's me own? 'Tradition'?

Again, not at all obvious, and certainly not automatic. Which “gene” is this intuition located in? Lots of people also believe in meritocracy instead of “equality of outcomes”; why do you allege their intuition is wrong, and yours is right?

(f) Not mine. I'm post-Christian. With a vengeance I'm afraid. It's so second rate and worse in so many ways. Social justice, like secularism, is rational and eusocial and utilitarian. It maximizes happiness, well being for all.

There is not a single place in the world that this has happened. Rather, forced “equalization” results in piles of corpses, as we have seen over, and over, and over again.

I’m afraid you’re mistaking your post-Protestant moralizing upbringing for a general human intuition. But the majority of the world, for the majority of history, does not share that background or what you take as a universal intuition. And as you can see, the minute you try to apply it to some specifics, like the fellow at Morrison’s, the whole intuition breaks down.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

(a) How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

(b) Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job.

(c) That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level.

(d) What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.

And there will be those cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency.

(e) Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

(a) Already answered. I loathe that lying term being applied to a fellow human being who obviously has no choice in the matter whatsoever. He speaks with a middle class accent. Doesn't curse. That speaks volumes for your misanthropy. What happened to you? All it takes is awareness. Einstein knew it, of course. I've worked with the dispossessed since 2009, luckily I've been a thousand miles from home with nothing in my pocket. I'm very grateful for that. You should try it. I encountered just enough kindness. From the dispossessed. None of the dispossessed, none, ever blamed anyone but themselves. I always asked did they choose their parents. It stopped them in their tracks. They are kind, decent, polite, clean. With nothing. With hand to mouth. They love politeness. Respect. The most manipulative person I met was a middle class professional heroin addict. He needed re-educating. I sat with another heroin addict, in the gutter, and we both wept. That's all I could offer. You see, you don't have to go wrong, be morally inadequate, to fall far. He'd been a cop. His little boy died. That was it. So fuck you. After 10 years, which is miraculous, I found him scoring outside my church. We just hugged for a long time. So again. Fuck you.

(b) I couldn't give a fuck what you are. You're wrong. Your moral compass is wrong. And of course, it's not your fault. But none of what I'm saying can touch you. Only re-education could possibly do that. We can't afford that yet.

(c) I'm extremely grateful for my miserable situation, thanks. I have a quiver full of arrows. Private sufficiency is sacrosanct. No political-economic system can be allowed to reduce anyone below that, to create true want, to create deprivation, to make people smell, and curse, and drink, and die, for their relationships to fail, for them to become dispossessed, for their children to be blighted for life. Because that breaks the very first and foremost moral imperative, before fairness. It does harm. Raising that bogeyman of the French Revolution, the Red Terror, of the Holodomor, of The Great Leap Forward, of the Killing Fields is asinine. We've been there. We've [been] down those cul-de-sacs. The survivors, the witnesses, have learned. Social justice applies to all. Without harming any. The affliction of the comfortable to comfort the afflicted must be above all moral. Affliction.

Oh, and, fuck you. I wonder why I Foed you.

Happy to address global social injustice. The same eusocial principles apply.

(d) The level is ask them. And I address the level of the level in (c). They are the level. They set the level. And they do no harm. Enforced.

(e) We embrace them. We give ALL a stake. Worth. And we expect - we're not stupid. We listen. We're Rogerian. We educate. We take them climbing. Have you ever done that? I have. Fucking awesome. I was the extra-strength lager monitor for the alcoholics. They don't need fucking charity, leavings, pennies. They need their dues. They are owed. They are owed restitution. Being made as whole as possible. To each according to their needs. From each according to their abilities.

If you can't see the warrant, you're a sociopath.

And it's Morrisons.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

In fact, this is a very good subtopic.

(a) Why is “equality of outcome” a desired goal?

(b) Why is “equality of opportunity” not enough?

(c) How can “equality of outcome” be achieved, if we still imagine it’s desirable, without dragging everybody down to the lowest common level?

And below that:

(d) What belief would entitle us to advocate that “equality of outcome” is promised to us, or is even virtuous, given that hierarchy of values is universally evident?

(e) WHO is trying to get us to assume that “equality of outcome” is a virtuous and desirable goal? Whose interests are being served by us believing something that a) manifestly never happens in reality, and b) is not achievable without the complete destruction of all values?

(f) Is our assumption that there is something specifically “Christian” about “equality of outcome”? If so, what would the connection be? What proof could we summon that this is a “Christian” imperative? If it’s secular, what secular source could we cite to justify our claim that secularism requires us to aim at “equality of outcome”?

(g) I’ll bet these are things that most people who suppose “equality of outcome” to be a moral goal have never even entertained as problematic. But if not, what’s sponsoring their confidence in that goal?

(a) It's the fairest pursuit of all. You feel it. You know it.

I don’t find that obvious. I see no reason to suppose the character outside Morrison’s is the level to which we should reduce you.

(b) Because it accumulates unfairness. Except in the case where (a) comes first.

Again, not at all obvious. What’s “unfair” about the guy at Morrison’s not getting to pull you down to his level?

(c) You start at the top and redistribute that to the 30% of families with child poverty in the UK.

I’m sorry — who, in specific, is meant by “you”? It’s clearly not me, and I must suppose it isn’t yourself, either. What mechanism are you granting the power to take 30% of your income and distribute it to the guy outside Morrison’s?

You abolish income (not that they pay much) and all other tax that affects the 30%. And you tax the wealth from the top. You charge them back rent on the land they've occupied for up to a thousand years. All the added value that the taxpayer has paid for in 'farm' subsidies. To billionaires. To the old money. And the nouveau riche. Tax lifestyle from the top down.

This “you,” of whom you speak — you’re giving him a lot of power, and completely trusting him to do the right thing. Doesn’t that worry you? And since you are decidedly in the 30% yourself, on a world scale, are you content to let him take your wages from you and redistribute them to the rest of the world? Or even to the guy outside Morrison’s?

(d) The knowledge quality belief of its fairness.

Again, this is not at all obvious. Secularly speaking, there’s nobody to tell us that we owe anybody “fairness,” whatever that is supposed to entail. And “equal” is not the same as “fair.” The guy outside Morrison’s getting the same income as you, even if he does not work and does do drugs, is only superficially “equal,”and is certainly “unfair.” He may need more than you, and he may deserve less; but nothing suggests sameness is the “just” distribution.

(e) We are. It's in our genes. Along with less moral 'moral' imperatives. We're just blind to it until it's pointed out. Hiding in plain sight. Then it's obvious. Everybody's. (a) It doesn't ever happen because the masses never see it, the ruling class guarantee that. Including the Labour Party here, all centre left parties everywhere (b) What values? What's yours is mine and what's mine's me own? 'Tradition'?

Again, not at all obvious, and certainly not automatic. Which “gene” is this intuition located in? Lots of people also believe in meritocracy instead of “equality of outcomes”; why do you allege their intuition is wrong, and yours is right?

(f) Not mine. I'm post-Christian. With a vengeance I'm afraid. It's so second rate and worse in so many ways. Social justice, like secularism, is rational and eusocial and utilitarian. It maximizes happiness, well being for all.

There is not a single place in the world that this has happened. Rather, forced “equalization” results in piles of corpses, as we have seen over, and over, and over again.

I’m afraid you’re mistaking your post-Protestant moralizing upbringing for a general human intuition. But the majority of the world, for the majority of history, does not share that background or what you take as a universal intuition. And as you can see, the minute you try to apply it to some specifics, like the fellow at Morrison’s, the whole intuition breaks down.

You won't see it Foe. Will not. The only extenuating circumstance is that you cannot will what you will.

[Immanuel Can]

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

(b) Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job.

(c) That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level.

(d) What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.

And there will be those cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency.

(e) Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

(a) Already answered. I loathe that lying term being applied to a fellow human being who obviously has no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Well, now you’re adding details you omitted before. And that’s fine. But let’s take the case of a beggar on fentanyl. There are plenty of those. How do you create “equality of outcome between you and fentanyl addict who is dying on the streets?

(b) I couldn't give a fuck what you are. You're wrong. Your moral compass is wrong.

Which secular theory gives you a justification for thinking anybody can be wrong?

Besides, you don’t believe anybody has free will, right? So nobody can be wrong. There is no wrong. There is only the aimless playing out of whatever Natural Forces have predestined to happen. And of course, it's not your fault.

But none of what I'm saying can touch you. Only re-education could possibly do that.

The Marxist “reeducation camps”? Yes, I’m very familiar with their work. Are you?

(c) I'm extremely grateful for my miserable situation, thanks. I have a quiver full of arrows. Private sufficiency is sacrosanct. No political-economic system can be allowed to reduce anyone below that, to create true want, to create deprivation, to make people smell, and curse, and drink, and die, for their relationships to fail, for them to become dispossessed, for their children to be blighted for life. Because that breaks the very first and foremost moral imperative, before fairness. It does harm. Raising that bogeyman of the French Revolution, the Red Terror, of the Holodomor, of The Great Leap Forward, of the Killing Fields is asinine. We've been there. We've [been] down those cul-de-sacs. The survivors, the witnesses, have learned. Social justice applies to all. Without harming any. The affliction of the comfortable to comfort the afflicted must be above all moral. Affliction.

How eloquent you wax! When will you be donating your income to the Developing World, since you believe in universal “justice” and “equality of outcome”?

Not soon, I’m thinking. You know it won’t work. You know you can’t even do it, and it wouldn’t create “justice” if you did. All it would do is drain your income, and put you into starvation conditions.

So much for “social justice.” It’s got high words, but no follow through.

Happy to address global social injustice. The same eusocial principles apply.

Prove it. Redistribute your own income. You have the power; let’s see how deep your convictions about “equality of outcome” and “global social justice” apply. Any number of penurious people in the Developing World will be delighted at your largesse. I only regret that henceforth, having sold your computer and redistributed the proceeds, you’ll be unable to post anymore.

(d) The level is ask them. And I address the level of the level in (c). They are the level. They set the level. And they do no harm. Enforced.

“Ask them?” But how is that “equality of outcome”? If you “ask them,” then you don’t know what the answer is, and you can only expect different answers. Moreover, if you ask Westerners what is fair, you’ll get a very different answer than if you ask the rest of the world. So “ask them” is the farthest thing from “equality.”

(e) We embrace them. We give ALL a stake. Worth. And we expect - we're not stupid. We listen. We're Rogerian. We educate. We take them climbing. Have you ever done that? I have. Fucking awesome. I was the extra-strength lager monitor for the alcoholics. They don't need fucking charity, leavings, pennies. They need their dues. They are owed. They are owed restitution. Being made as whole as possible. To each according to their needs. From each according to their abilities.

Socialism has killed more people, by orders of magnitude, than any other agency in history. You should know that.

“Restitution,” you say? Who owes this “restitution,” and how much is it? Let’s say for an addict. How much is he due, and from whom? When are you going to start paying him? Or did you only mean that you weren’t personally going to involve yourself…just nameless people with infinite wealth at their disposal? I’d like to meet these people; where are they? And what did they do to make people alcoholics or fentanyl addicts?

[Age]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

'This one', still, believes that it is 'higher' and/or 'superior' to other human beings.

Could a human being become any more deluded or delusional, here?

[Age]

In fact, this is a very good subtopic.

Why is “equality of outcome” a desired goal?

All of you human beings started out with the exact same goal, so I suggest 'you' ask, "your" 'self'.

And, if you can not find 'the answer', then this is a sure sign of how deluded 'you' have become, here.

Why is “equality of opportunity” not enough?

Who said it is not?

And, do you believe that you live in 'a world' with so-called 'equality of opportunity'?

If yes, then why are 'you', still, at a level of so disadvantaged?

How can “equality of outcome” be achieved, if we still imagine it’s desirable, without dragging everybody down to the lowest common level?

Could you present a more negative view and perspective, here?

Why not just present an actual Factual view and perspective instead of either a negative or positive one, only?

And below that:

What belief would entitle us to advocate that “equality of outcome” is promised to us, or is even virtuous, given that hierarchy of values is universally evident?

Would you like to present your own personal definition of 'equality of outcome', here?

If no, then why not?

What are you so afraid of, this time?

WHO is trying to get us to assume that “equality of outcome” is a virtuous and desirable goal?

Who would be stupid or foolish enough to assume, or believe, otherwise?

Whose interests are being served by us believing something that a) manifestly never happens in reality, and b) is not achievable without the complete destruction of all values?

Who even believes 'this', here?

Is our assumption that there is something specifically “Christian” about “equality of outcome”?

Who does the 'our' word, here, refer to, exactly?

If so, what would the connection be? What proof could we summon that this is a “Christian” imperative? If it’s secular, what secular source could we cite to justify our claim that secularism requires us to aim at “equality of outcome”?

'This one' has a tendency to just about always come back to, 'If it is not a "christian" view, then it can not be justified'.

'This one' actually speaks as though only 'those views' that follow some made up 'male creator's' views can be justified, yet 'this one' has never ever actually justified any of 'those views' at all.

I’ll bet these are things that most people who suppose “equality of outcome” to be a moral goal have never even entertained as problematic.

And, 'we' could also bet that what 'you' perceive and imagine to be so-called 'problematic' are not even 'problematic' at all.

And, considering the Fact that 'you' will never allow "yourself" to be questioned and challenged over your claims, views, and beliefs, here, more or less confirm, absolutely, that 'we' already have, and would always, win 'this bet'.

But if not, what’s sponsoring their confidence in that goal?

If 'you' ever put "yourself" forward, here, then you would find and see that it is the actual and Real God who is, and is what is, so-called, 'sponsoring the confidence of that goal'.

But, because 'you' are too afraid and scared to put forward and present 'your beliefs', here, in the Truly open and honest way, 'you' will never come to learning and understanding this irrefutable Fact.

[Age]

“A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient; nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient; and looking upon them only as sick and extravagant.”
― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The Scottish Play, Act V. Scene V. - Dunsinane. Within the Castle. Macbeth: "... it is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.".

You cannot help the unhelpable Belinda, even those who ask. It's no ones fault. R D Laing might have been able to. But no mere mortals such as we.

They have to be Foed until they learn to be polite. And they can not. It's terribly sad.

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

Same here.

Yes, sorry about my impatience, you are right. My excuse is that Age did once or twice make sense .

If you really want to talk 'about me', and make claims 'about me', then I suggest you present the actual things that you want to make reference to, and let the readers decide if 'they' made sense or not.

Just you claiming some thing, (without ever presenting said thing), does not make sense, will never mean that 'it' does not actually make sense.

Also, and let 'us' not forget, you just claiming, for example, that some thing I said, once or twice, did make sense, will never mean that 'they' did actually make sense. Again, others will decide 'that', for 'them', and not 'you'.

So, if you really want to claim that I made sense, once or twice, then show when and where 'this', supposedly, happened. And, then let 'us' see if 'others' agree with 'you', or not.

[Age]

“A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient; nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient; and looking upon them only as sick and extravagant.”
― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The Scottish Play, Act V. Scene V. - Dunsinane. Within the Castle. Macbeth: "... it is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.".

You cannot help the unhelpable Belinda, even those who ask. It's no ones fault. R D Laing might have been able to. But no mere mortals such as we.

They have to be Foed until they learn to be polite. And they can not. It's terribly sad.

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

Same here.

Yes, sorry about my impatience, you are right. My excuse is that Age did once or twice make sense .

Don't you dare be sorry to the likes of me Belinda! I got three fingers pointing back at me if I point to a sister's mote I imagine. That's the tragedy, many do, age and godelian for a start, but. Make sense. They are... disarrayed. They need rock star income treatment. I mean I could do with that too, but my thread of rationality has not yet snapped or been overwhelmed. In fact it's new found, only in the last 10% of my life. And I will not ever let go until it all turns to mush. These poor guys get abuse here, and I come close, which broken creatures do not need. They can't walk naked and be OK with us. And it's nobody's fault. They may have been seriously abused from infancy, but probably not. Just faulty wiring and wear and tear. Some are more hopeful. Not as hostile. Not at all in some cases. But not grounded. Not groundable. Where's R D when you need him?

So, 'another one' has decided to talk 'about me', and start conversations 'about me', in another thread.

Once again, if 'this one' had the courage to even begin to back up and support its claims, here, then it would, but obviously 'this one' also has no actual thing at all.

I suggest be 'grown up', especially by your age 'now', "martin peter clarke", if you want to claim that I have faulty wiring or wear and tear, then present at least one thing so 'the readers' can 'look' and 'judge' for "themselves".

See, only a 'broken person' would make claims and judgments of 'others' while not presenting nor producing any actual thing, which backs up and supports their claims or judgement.

Show 'us' that 'you' "peter martin Clarke" are not 'broken' and not a 'coward' hiding, here.

[Age]

Yes, sorry about my impatience, you are right. My excuse is that Age did once or twice make sense .

Don't you dare be sorry to the likes of me Belinda! I got three fingers pointing back at me if I point to a sister's mote I imagine. That's the tragedy, many do, age and godelian for a start, but. Make sense. They are... disarrayed. They need rock star income treatment. I mean I could do with that too, but my thread of rationality has not yet snapped or been overwhelmed. In fact it's new found, only in the last 10% of my life. And I will not ever let go until it all turns to mush. These poor guys get abuse here, and I come close, which broken creatures do not need. They can't walk naked and be OK with us. And it's nobody's fault. They may have been seriously abused from infancy, but probably not. Just faulty wiring and wear and tear. Some are more hopeful. Not as hostile. Not at all in some cases. But not grounded. Not groundable. Where's R D when you need him?

Do you not think it would help them to have the courage to know that they don't know?

LOL you can not even refer, specifically, to what 'it' is that you are even talking about, here.

LOL All I said and wrote was that "attofishpi" has completely and utterly contradicted "itself", once more.

It is like 'this one' believes, absolutely, that "attofishpi" has not, and therefore it is 'I' who can not be helped, here.

LOL 'this one' never even begun to even just consider to seek out to 'find out' how, where, and when "attofishpi" contradicted "itself".

[Age]

Don't you dare be sorry to the likes of me Belinda! I got three fingers pointing back at me if I point to a sister's mote I imagine. That's the tragedy, many do, age and godelian for a start, but. Make sense. They are... disarrayed. They need rock star income treatment. I mean I could do with that too, but my thread of rationality has not yet snapped or been overwhelmed. In fact it's new found, only in the last 10% of my life. And I will not ever let go until it all turns to mush. These poor guys get abuse here, and I come close, which broken creatures do not need. They can't walk naked and be OK with us. And it's nobody's fault. They may have been seriously abused from infancy, but probably not. Just faulty wiring and wear and tear. Some are more hopeful. Not as hostile. Not at all in some cases. But not grounded. Not groundable. Where's R D when you need him?

Do you not think it would help them to have the courage to know that they don't know?

Yeah I do, but I don't think it's a matter of courage. It's more poignant than that. They are so fucked up there's no way they can know it.

'I" challenge 'you' "peter martin clarke" to 'grow up', here, and write down the 'very reasons' why 'you' believe, absolutely, that 'I' am so-called 'so fucked up'.

you believe, absolutely, and claim that there is 'no way possible' that 'I' can know that 'I' am so-called 'so fucked up', so go ahead and prove this belief and claims of yours, here.

Write down why 'I' am 'so fucked up'.

Prove to 'the readers' that even when 'you' write down why 'I' am 'so fucked up' that even then 'I' can not know 'this'.




Now, what 'we' have, here, is 'another one' who when 'I' have shown and proved to be of 'distorted thinking', and who had no way of refuting nor countering 'this' was left with nothing but with words like it has used above, here.

I should feel too bad to say that. But I don't. Because there's nothing to lose. Nothing can hurt them more. I've worked with street people. I passed one this evening on the river bank. I walked on, he didn't know. And I've been the only person to encourage him before now, because I wasn't afraid of him. He was scary. But he'd aged and was looking at the sky. Reduced. And I didn't have the... energy to stop and engage.

They 'just' need a vast amount of money spent on their treatment. So they can be... disarrayed in comfort. Looked after.

What a Truly imbecilic thing to say and 'try to' claim about 'others' in a forum on the internet.

Imagine being so 'little' and so insecure about "one's" 'own self' that they 'try to' claim that 'others' are so 'less' than 'them' that 'they' just have to ignore them.

LOL "martin peter clarke" has yet to prove that it is 'others', here, who are 'too broken', and that 'it' is not.

Quite a few of these posters, here, keep forgetting that 'just claiming some thing' never makes it True, and that they actually need to back up and support 'their claims' with irrefutable proof to make 'their claims' actually True.

Let 'us' see if "peter martin clarke" has the courage, and ability, to even just begin.

Then, and only then, 'we' will see what actually 'transpires'.

[Age]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

'This' is, exactly, what "immanuel can" believes is absolutely true.

"Immanuel can" believes that a male gender thing created 'those' who believe in a very particular and specific story are 'rich', and everyone else is 'below' 'them'.

[Age]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

'you' speak and write as though you have done 'the other' some sort of favor, or that 'your holiness and/or highness' has done some sort of righteousness.

Some of 'these posters' really were absolutely delusional. Does 'this one' really believe that it, alone, or with only some, exists in some sort of 'light', here?

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working.

Talk about a 'prime example' of one who really did, and obviously still does, need a 'lot of help'.

Lucky me to have a job.

Obviously 'this one' has been completely and utterly 'led astray', by some, and is, still, 'blind' as can be.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level. And there will be those who cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency. But the luxury public services should make a difference. In health, education. welfare.

Re your next post, later.

[Age]

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

It is like 'this one', actually, believes, absolutely, that God equally created all for some to be 'higher' and some to be 'lower' than others, and for some to be 'happy' and for some to be 'miserable', which could not be any further from the actual and irrefutable Truth, here.

What 'this one' continually proves, here, is that depending on one's 'upbringing', hitherto, and thus on one's 'teachings', hitherto, human beings can be made completely and utterly distorted and/or delusional.

"christian" teaching is, if 'you' are not 'one of us', then 'you' are 'lesser than us'. Which is, essentially, just "immanuel can's" belief, here, which it is 'trying to' get 'the rest' to follow and abide by as well.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on.

LOL Imagine 'trying to' make 'a problem', when absolutely none exists.

Obviously 'every human body' is 'different'. And, just as obvious is 'every human being' is different. But, what is just as obviously is what 'every human being' is, is exactly the same. Just like what 'every human being' is, is exactly the same.

What 'every human body' is, is 'equally the same', but what 'every human body' experiences, and does, is 'different'.

And, as always, for those with 'interest' just ask questions for clarity, elaboration, proof, and/or to challenge.

What, then, is “equality of outcome”?

So, if 'you' do not yet know what the words, 'equality of outcome', are meaning and/or referring to, then why do you insist that 'it' could not even be a thing.

Which, by the way, as can be clearly seen and proved throughout these writings, here, in this forum, 'these people', in the days when this was being written, would continually fight and/or argue 'over things' before and without ever considering what 'the thing' even is, exactly.

And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen?

Obviously by the 'very Thing', which also goes by the name and label, 'Spirit, Allah, God, and Enlightenment.

Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”?

The 'exact same' S.A.G.E., obviously.

Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

Talk about presenting 'another' absolutely and Truly narrowed and/or closed view and perspective.

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing)

Yet, here 'your' are 'trying' your very hardest to 'justify' why some are 'rich' and some are 'poor', and how 'this' is how ,' 'it' is meant to be, and supposed to be '.

Which goes against the 'very teachings' of "christianity" and what God wants.

'you' posters, here, could not come across and be 'more contradictory' at times.

But, then 'you' got your 'lessons, in Life' from some of the 'most contradictory' and 'ill conceived' 'passed on knowledge'.

what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

Again, 'this one' 'tries' its hardest to defend 'its teachings' AGAINST 'the teachings' of others.

Once more, how more narrowed and closed could 'these people' have gotten? As always, 'we' will have, to wait, to see.

[Age]

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job.

That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed;

But why 'must' 'you and others', here, consider "yourselves" so-called 'lucky', indeed?

Did not some 'male gendered God Thing' create some of you 'lucky', and some not? After all, to you anyway, there is absolutely no so-called 'equality of outcome'.

the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest.

But, there is NO so-called 'upper' nor 'lower' of 'humanity', in relation to any perceived 'separation' among you human beings in 'humanity'.

Now, obviously, 'humanity', itself, could be 'doing' or 'behaving' 'lesser' or 'higher', but 'humanity', itself, is not 'broken up' into 'different groups' of 'lesser' nor 'higher' human beings.

your ill-gotten and Wrongly-obtained prejudices just keep coming through and shining through, here, "immanuel can".

Imagine having a 'superiority complex' so strong that you actually believe that 'you' are one of 'the ones' in the 'top 10% of 'humanity', itself.

It is like 'this one' does not even know what the word, 'humanity', itself, means and/or is referring to, exactly? 'This one's' superiority complex will not allow 'it' to see things for how they really are, here.

And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

Once again, 'this one' provides 'another prime example' of how and when one's own very Wrong and distorted assumptions, lead to very Wrong and distorted beliefs, which in turn make very False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect conclusions, which, in turn, then become 'that one's' 'new beliefs.

Look, even God claimed that one day, or eventually, you ALL will live in peace and harmony with one another, as One. Which, obviously, means, the 'equal outcome' for absolutely every one is to be, and will be, achieved.

And, if 'you' really want to believe every one living in peace and harmony with one another, as One (with God), is closer to some so-called '3rd world poverty', then go on right ahead and believe such a thing.

But why would you be wanting to do 'those things', in Life, which would lead 'you' to wanting to 'live in' 'the way' that 'the God' you want to listen to and believe says will be the 'equal outcome'?

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border?

The so-called 'border' is where not every one is 'living in', or 'with', the 'same outcome', obviously.

Did 'you', really, need to ask what you did, here?

What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere?

To show what greediness and selfishness can, and will, cause and create.

To prove what 'to do' and what 'not to do', in Life. That is, if one, really, does want to live in peace and harmony with one another, as One.

But, obviously, if you do not want to "immanuel can", then you will keep doing what quite a few in so-called "western countries" do, and you will keep 'trying to' 'justify' what 'they', and 'you', do.

Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.

If only 'this one', and 'others', knew. If only 'they' knew.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level.

What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.

'The world' has been 'going on' for millions of years, and 'the world' will go on for, at least, millions more, yet 'this one' speaks as though what has been happening in say the last few hundred years or less, is how 'things' are 'always meant to be'.

Again, could people like 'this one' become any more 'narrowed' or 'closed'?

One would hope not, but then 'they' write 'their next post'.

And there will be those cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency.

Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it?

Again, how 'narrowed' field of view 'their perspectives' are would could not be imagined if 'they' were not being presented, here, for all to 'look at' and 'see'.

What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained?

Again, just because you, or one, believes, absolutely, that some thing can not be attained never ever means that 'this' is necessarily True, nor Right, at all.

When will 'you', people, come to comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact?

What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

Spoken, and written, by 'one' who 'judges' and Truly believes that it is 'more superior' to another.

What is 'best done' is 'just do' what prevents and stops you human beings from coming-to-be what you people call, name, and label "drug addicts", and 'the rest' above, here.

A lot of 'these adult human beings', when this was being written, would completely and utterly forget that 'those human beings' were not 'those things', which 'they' put and placed 'labels' and 'names' up, and on.

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation.

And, how one's like 'this one' 'try to justify' 'this' is that by giving away or sharing a tiny fraction of a percentage of what they claim 'is theirs', then 'they' 'tell' "themselves", 'I have been charitable'.

Also, while some like "immanuel can" 'do so', not doing so 'to be charitable' in and of itself, but because they believe that by 'doing so' they, personally, will get a 'free pass' to some 'promised life' after 'they' have so-called 'died'.

People like 'this one' known as "immanuel can" could not be more delusional, stupid, and foolish, here.

Not that 'they' would ever even just 'consider this', let alone even begin to just start 'listening to', and 'hearing' 'this'.

People like "immanuel can" do not, yet, realize that it is 'them' and their False words and teachings, which is what the word, 'devil', is referring to, exactly.

But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.”

Look people, the word, 'outcome', literally means and/or refers to what may not yet have arrived, been achieved, and/or not yet been attained. So, 'just maybe', 'equality of outcome' has net yet been created, and thus not yet been 'lived in'. Which also means that what is happening 'now', when this is being written, exists 'inequality', obviously.

And, just as obvious is if any one wants 'this inequality' to continue, then they will Falsely 'try to' claim, and 'justify', 'inequality' is how 'things' are always meant to be.

Which, obviously, would go completely against ANY thing that God wanted, or desired.

Could 'any of this' be made any more clearer?

We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

Absolutely NO human being has to be a so-called "christian" to care about 'equality' for others. And, your absolutely ridiculous and incessant belief and claim that if you are so-called "secular", (or anything else), and not a so-called "christian", then you 'do not care' for or about others, nor 'do not care about equality', is 'another prime example' of 'you' 'trying to' spread Falsehoods and False claims while 'trying to' trick and deceive others, or is just speaking like even you would call, in 'evil ways', or as 'the devil, itself, would'.

Look "Immanuel can" the 'only one' 'you' are fooling and deceiving, here, is "your" own 'self', and a very slight few, if any, others.

'We' are not being tricked and fooled like 'you' have been.