View Poll Results: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I explained below why

    6 21.43%
  • No, I explained below why

    2 7.14%
  • Yes; I did not explain below why

    15 53.57%
  • No; I did not explain below why

    5 17.86%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

  1. #21
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Federal Income Tax (FIT) code allows for different tax due amounts for two citizens working side by for the exact same pay, based on personal and financial decisions that they made (and their ages).
    I favor a flat tax and a consumer tax, no deductions, not tax write-offs, no tax deferments or other tax dodges. Sound good to you or do you have a different idea?

  2. #22
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,562

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    I favor a flat tax and a consumer tax, no deductions, not tax write-offs, no tax deferments or other tax dodges. Sound good to you or do you have a different idea?
    I prefer a single federal income tax rate (20%?) with a single standard deduction ($10,000?). If citizen A makes $20,000/year then they pay $2,000 in tax (10% of gross income). If citizen B makes $100,000/year then they pay $18,000 in tax (18% of gross income). It uses a flat tax rate yet it is progressive, shielding the lowest income people from excessive taxation; having only two numbers it is not as subject to a bunch of lobbyists and special interests monkeying with it, and inserting special trickery to make it so complicated that many end up paying vastly differing amounts of tax for the same amount of gross income. NOTE: the reason I have placed ? with my rate and deduction amounts is that I would start with figures that yield about 15% of current GDP, but do not know how to acurately compute those numbers. ;-)
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Why must males pass a different physical test than females for the SAME pay and SAME job classification in an "open gender" military job? Why allow different age limits for the right to vote and the right to bear arms? Why is it legal to get gov't retirement pay at age 50 (or younger), but a tax penalty is levied for anyone taking out their own private retirement before age 59 1/2?
    Perhaps I should have added "when all things are equal". Unfortenately I forget that there are too many people caught up in semantical crap to be honest in their debating.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Federal Income Tax (FIT) code allows for different tax due amounts for two citizens working side by for the exact same pay, based on personal and financial decisions that they made (and their ages).
    Since when? When I was single and working at age 21 I was getting the same amount of FIT taxes pulled out of my check as someone that was 51 and single.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #25
    Educator Black_Zawisza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    12-20-13 @ 04:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    604

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Read the decision in Brown v Board.
    I did. I found the Supreme Court's ruling to be exasperatingly unsupported and pretty clearly politically-based.

    I generally don't pay attention to arguments from authority, anyway, which is what people are doing whenever they invoke a Supreme Court ruling. If their reasoning holds up by itself, then there's no need to mention that it was thought up by a majority of SC justices - if it doesn't, then their opinion should be discarded.
    Last edited by Black_Zawisza; 06-08-12 at 02:15 AM.
    Statist silliness of the day:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All this talk about "dominion over a third person" is libertarianistic goobledy-gook. "dominion over a third person" means that the 3rd person is "controlled", and our govt does not control people.

  6. #26
    Educator Black_Zawisza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    12-20-13 @ 04:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    604

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by wolv67 View Post
    Yeah cause the qualification "but equal" is always added by a group that actually wants an unequal distribution of whatever. If they didn't think of the other group as "less than", they wouldn't want separate access to the same thing, so they (being in charge) go ahead and build drinking fountains that are inferior, or civil unions that aren't recognized by the fed or other states. If they actually wanted equality, they wouldn't be striving for separation in the first place. It's just a way to get the oppressed group to shut up and accept its status as inferior, and aside from that, I always want to tell someone with that mindset "YOU go call what you're doing a civil union."
    It seems to me like a lot of people are missing the point here. In practice, yes, it clearly winds up being oppressive in nature.

    But that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking if, theoretically, an equal system of segregation is possible. If it is, then segregation cannot be inherently unequal.
    Last edited by Black_Zawisza; 06-08-12 at 02:20 AM.
    Statist silliness of the day:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All this talk about "dominion over a third person" is libertarianistic goobledy-gook. "dominion over a third person" means that the 3rd person is "controlled", and our govt does not control people.

  7. #27
    Educator Black_Zawisza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    12-20-13 @ 04:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    604

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal because it divides people into groups with lines which some, if not all, cannot cross. This is a limitation on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not to mention a couple the Amendments to the Constitution.
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    It's a restriction of freedom, obviously, but could you explain how it can possibly be unequal if no one is given preferential treatment (which was the premise in my OP, remember). That is, black folks drinking from white drinking fountains are arrested, and white folks drinking black fountains are arrested.
    Statist silliness of the day:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All this talk about "dominion over a third person" is libertarianistic goobledy-gook. "dominion over a third person" means that the 3rd person is "controlled", and our govt does not control people.

  8. #28
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    It seems to me like a lot of people are missing the point here. In practice, yes, it clearly winds up being oppressive in nature.

    But that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking if, theoretically, an equal system of segregation is possible. If it is, then segregation cannot be inherently unequal.
    No, an equal system of segregation is not possible. Not if you value true equality.

    You can definitely make a system of segregation and call it equal. But it will never BE equal.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #29
    Educator Black_Zawisza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    12-20-13 @ 04:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    604

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    No, an equal system of segregation is not possible. Not if you value true equality.

    You can definitely make a system of segregation and call it equal. But it will never BE equal.
    Could you elaborate on what is unequal about a system where there are white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains, each of equal quality and quantity, and white people can't drink from black fountains and vice versa? I really don't understand. Not necessarily saying you're doing this, but it seems to me that a lot of people include some definition of freedom, prosperity, or what have you in their definition of equality, and that's where the argument pops up. In other words, suppose someone were to set up an automated turret and then brainwash everyone into getting in line to stand in front of it, after which the human race would be extinct. Sure, it's a horrific massacre, but I would argue that it was completely equal.
    Statist silliness of the day:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All this talk about "dominion over a third person" is libertarianistic goobledy-gook. "dominion over a third person" means that the 3rd person is "controlled", and our govt does not control people.

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    Could you elaborate on what is unequal about a system where there are white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains, each of equal quality and quantity, and white people can't drink from black fountains and vice versa? I really don't understand. Not necessarily saying you're doing this, but it seems to me that a lot of people include some definition of freedom, prosperity, or what have you in their definition of equality, and that's where the argument pops up. In other words, suppose someone were to set up an automated turret and then brainwash everyone into getting in line to stand in front of it, after which the human race would be extinct. Sure, it's a horrific massacre, but I would argue that it was completely equal.
    Why shouldn't a black man drink from the white fountain? Is there something wrong with that black man that would make you want to not let him drink from it? The only way for such a system to work is if EVERY SINGLE PERSON agreed to it ALL THE TIME. And that is just not possible. You are limiting a persons freedom and choice by not allowing them to choose to drink for either or.

    As for your turret...wouldn't work. 1: Everyone was brainwashed. IE they had NO choice in the matter. 2: The person that did all this would not be brainwashed and as such would be able to make the choice on their own. Where as everyone else had no choice.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •