TRUE equality is a myth, in nature, nothing is equal....

[enderpotato00]

Not saying we can't life better, but achieving true equality is impossible. No one is truly equal in this world. But anyways, your thoughts?

 

[OlNate]

Not saying we can't life better, but achieving true equality is impossible. No one is truly equal in this world. But anyways, your thoughts?

I think if we start with equal opportunity, we'll be in a better position to see what is possible beyond that.

 

[enderpotato00]

I think if we start with equal opportunity, we'll be in a better position to see what is possible beyond that.

But will the world be truly equal? I really doubt it. But I like your point of view.

 

[KevinKohler]

Define equal?

Does fox equal weasel? Or does it equal badger?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Not saying we can't life better, but achieving true equality is impossible. No one is truly equal in this world. But anyways, your thoughts?

Equal opportunity, not equal capabilities. Equal justice, not equal quality legal representation. Equal access, not equal outcome. Equal potential, not equal results.

You have the right to the pursuit of happiness, you do not have the guarantee of happiness as the resut of your pursuits.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees the legal protection of your natural right to freedom and liberty. It does not guarantee the outcome of the choices you make with your freedom and liberty.

We as a people are equal under the law. We are not equal in any other way, and the government cannot change that.

 

[Praxas]

We as a people are equal under the law.

flat out FALSE. The example I give was the kid who was given probation for murder because the judge deemed him too affluent. We are DEFINITELY not equal under the law.

 

[Vox]

Well, traditionally......equal opportunity has meant that the minorities get jobs ahead of better qualified white people.

Lately there's been a lot of pushback about that and I think it's about over.

No.......equality is a dream......a strange and unattainable fantasy dreamed up by Liberals.

 

[Nap]

I think if we start with equal opportunity, we'll be in a better position to see what is possible beyond that.

Equality of opportunity is naturally going to lead to inequality. I believe that is essentially the point the OP was trying to make.

 

[Nap]

flat out FALSE. The example I give was the kid who was given probation for murder because the judge deemed him too affluent. We are DEFINITELY not equal under the law.

I have to agree, the more money and influence you have greatly determine just how "equal under the law" you are.

 

[Lursa]

Equality as a status (rather than a mathematical fact) is a man-made concept.

Just like rights.

It's subjective but in the US it the deliberately chosen foundation for recognizing rights and creating laws based on those rights.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Of course there is no equality in nature. In nature the strong take what they want from the weak. But I don’t see why that would mean you can’t have equality under the law. Nature and society are two different things.

 

[Beaudreaux]

flat out FALSE. The example I give was the kid who was given probation for murder because the judge deemed him too affluent. We are DEFINITELY not equal under the law.

Read my entire post.

 

[Praxas]

Read my entire post.

I did read it. You mentioned equal Justice, but that was not the case in my example. Where was the justice for the people that the affluent guy killed? There isn't equal justice.

The guy was found GUILTY. He wasn't given the same justice as someone who was poor was given.

 

[ataraxia]

Not saying we can't life better, but achieving true equality is impossible. No one is truly equal in this world. But anyways, your thoughts?

No one is arguing for equality of outcomes. Only equality of opportunities.

Of course there is never any chance that an inner city public school student living in a drug and gang infested neighborhood is ever going to have anywhere near the opportunities of some rich kid with private SAT tutoring, expensive summer camps, all sorts of insider connections for the most coveted internships, and going to some elite private college prep ivy-league-feeder boarding school (although I understand drugs are now more prevalent in these rich kid schools than in those inner city schools these days). But when they talk about taking away that little bit of opportunity for those in such positions of weakness and vulnerability too, and then call them stupid and lazy for not doing as well... that's when anyone with any sense of fairness or justice should realize that's just not right.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I did read it. You mentioned equal Justice, but that was not the case in my example. Where was the justice for the people that the affluent guy killed? There isn't equal justice.

The guy was found GUILTY. He wasn't given the same justice as someone who was poor was given.

Then you missed the part where I said "Equal justice, not equal quality legal representation" or where I said "Equal access, not equal outcome" or "Equal potential, not equal results."

 

[Praxas]

Then you missed the part where I said "Equal justice, not equal quality legal representation" or where I said "Equal access, not equal outcome" or "Equal potential, not equal results."

So you are fine and dandy with Rich getting different results in the justice system than the poor, do I have that correctly? If not, why would you advocate or support such a system? Or better yet, how do you call the justice system equal?

 

[Beaudreaux]

So you are fine and dandy with Rich getting different results in the justice system than the poor, do I have that correctly? If not, why would you advocate or support such a system? Or better yet, how do you call the justice system equal?

At what point did you read anything that implied that I was either fine, or dandy, with anything? Acceptance of facts and reality that cannot be changed is not in any way the same as being fine, or dandy, with the facts or reality.

I, again, advise you to read the post of mine that started your posts to me in this thread, and read it for its actual content, and not what you may interpret from it. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

To borrow from Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill and adapt it to replace the word "Democracy" with "our judicial system and our Constitution": "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

[Praxas]

At what point did you read anything that implied that I was either fine, or dandy, with anything? Acceptance of facts and reality that cannot be changed is not in any way the same as being fine, or dandy, with the facts or reality.

I, again, advise you to read the post of mine that started your posts to me in this thread, and read it for its actual content, and not what you may interpret from it. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

To borrow from Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill and adapt it to replace the word "Democracy" with "our judicial system and our Constitution": "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

You have not advocated what type of government should handle such cases as the one I mentioned. What type of government would have handled the case I mentioned with equality? You just like to spout pretty quotes, but you don't actually answer the question I asked. What type of government that you support should the US have to handle a case like the one I presented where a guy who was affluent was given PAROLE because he was affluent?

 

[OlNate]

Equality of opportunity is naturally going to lead to inequality. I believe that is essentially the point the OP was trying to make.

Maybe it's helpful if we get on the same page with the word equality:

e·qual·i·ty
əˈkwälədē/Submit
noun
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

Given the above, it would appear that equal opportunity, rather than leading to inequality, is the literal definition. Equality is specific in what it refers to.

Now, the OP is attempting to make a connection with equality and being simply equal, without that specification. What's equal?

e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1. being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
synonyms: identical, uniform, alike, like, the same, equivalent;

Clearly we are talking about two totally different concepts, as no two people can ever hope to be "equal".

I think the distinction, though admittedly appears to be engaging in a little hair splitting, is worth noting. Until we can demonstrate we have implemented equality, we cannot blame folks for noticing they are not equal. and trying hard to arrive at some kind of reasonable proximity through asking for equality. Despite the fact that no one will ever be equal to anyone else, similar access to opportunities should yield similar results through similar amounts of effort, across all demographics and sub demographics. When we see disparities across demographic lines, we have to ask if it is a result of inequality. That's a fair question. And, I believe, it's an attainable goal to achieve equality if everyone gets behind it, given the specificity of the definition.

 

[instagramsci]

If we're basing society on what happens in nature we have a serious problem

 

[Tigerace117]

Not saying we can't life better, but achieving true equality is impossible. No one is truly equal in this world. But anyways, your thoughts?

Which doesn't change the fact that making sure everything is as legitimately equal as possible is important.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You have not advocated what type of government should handle such cases as the one I mentioned. What type of government would have handled the case I mentioned with equality? You just like to spout pretty quotes, but you don't actually answer the question I asked. What type of government that you support should the US have to handle a case like the one I presented where a guy who was affluent was given PAROLE because he was affluent?

I most definitely have advocated the current form of government that we have, a Constitutional Republic, where our natural rights are protected and each person is free to advance and prosper to the maximum level their talents, capabilities, and hard work can take them.

If you advocate something different, which you obviously must since your posts state how you seem to dislike our form of government so vehemently, then by all means please describe to me and the rest of the forum which or what form of government you feel is superior, how it is superior and why, and how it should be implemented so we can have the discussion your posts seem to be yearning for. As it's going now, all your posts are discussing and putting forth are what you dislike and not what you would put in its place?

 

[Praxas]

I most definitely have advocated the current form of government that we have, a Constitutional Republic, where our natural rights are protected and each person is free to advance and prosper to the maximum level their talents, capabilities, and hard work can take them.

If you advocate something different, which you obviously must since your posts state how you seem to dislike our form of government so vehemently, then by all means please describe to me and the rest of the forum which or what form of government you feel is superior, how it is superior and why, and how it should be implemented so we can have the discussion your posts seem to be yearning for. As it's going now, all your posts are discussing and putting forth are what you dislike and not what you would put in its place?

Trump has sided with a foreign government rather than the US intelligence community. Show me what type
Of government does that?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Trump has sided with a foreign government rather than the US intelligence community. Show me what type
Of government does that?

Really? That came out of left field.

How does Trump have anything to do with what we were discussing? He doesn't. Our form of government has been around since the US Constitution was ratified by the states - which was well before Trump.

Now, if you'd like, tell me what form of government you would prefer, why, and how you would implement it, and we can go from there.

 

[Nap]

Maybe it's helpful if we get on the same page with the word equality:

e·qual·i·ty
əˈkwälədē/Submit
noun
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

Given the above, it would appear that equal opportunity, rather than leading to inequality, is the literal definition. Equality is specific in what it refers to.

Now, the OP is attempting to make a connection with equality and being simply equal, without that specification. What's equal?

e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1. being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
synonyms: identical, uniform, alike, like, the same, equivalent;

Clearly we are talking about two totally different concepts, as no two people can ever hope to be "equal".

I think the distinction, though admittedly appears to be engaging in a little hair splitting, is worth noting. Until we can demonstrate we have implemented equality, we cannot blame folks for noticing they are not equal. and trying hard to arrive at some kind of reasonable proximity through asking for equality. Despite the fact that no one will ever be equal to anyone else, similar access to opportunities should yield similar results through similar amounts of effort, across all demographics and sub demographics. When we see disparities across demographic lines, we have to ask if it is a result of inequality. That's a fair question. And, I believe, it's an attainable goal to achieve equality if everyone gets behind it, given the specificity of the definition.

My point is that the more freedom people have the worse inequality will be depending on your measurement. For instance, if I have 100 employees and offer them all the same amount of voluntary overtime over the course of a year, there will naturally be a segment at the top making more money than the others due to variables like how driven the employee is, family situations, health, etc and this dynamic plays out within society. Which is why I said that Equality of opportunity naturally leads in inequality. You can't achieve equality in a society without an oppressive government due to the fact that the more freedom individuals have the more decisions they will face that can better or worsen their life.