34 replies to this topic

[Pliny]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

Edited by Pliny, 21 August 2011 - 10:05 AM.

[kimmy]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another,

Who's demanding any of that?

no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

Equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I don't know of any notable political movement in our country that is intent on guaranteeing equality of results.


-k

[TimG]

Equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I don't know of any notable political movement in our country that is intent on guaranteeing equality of results.

It think you are arguing semantics. If you pin a leftist down they will likely say they are only interested in equality of opportunity but show them any evidence of inequality of outcome and they will insist that is irrefutable evidence of inequality of opportunity.

[kimmy]

It think you are arguing semantics. If you pin a leftist down they will likely say they are only interested in equality of opportunity but show them any evidence of inequality of outcome and they will insist that is irrefutable evidence of inequality of opportunity.

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

[CANADIEN]

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

Mark the day. I agree with you.

[Pliny]

Who's demanding any of that?

Only a few in Canada it seems. The far left socialist. But it is enabled and becomes a matter of increasing progeressivism through the State's ability to confiscate property and determine it's distribution.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I don't know of any notable political movement in our country that is intent on guaranteeing equality of results.

But if there is no equality of results then there must be an absence of equality of opportunity.
If women are half the population then there are those who will expect the representation in parliament to be half. Or if there is 10% of one race in the population then they would epxect the equivalent to be expected in their political representation. It matters little if those who are granted the right hold any interest in doing so that is how the left feel the demographic should break down.

Legislating an equality of opportunity means some must be denied opportunity in favour of others and it is no different or any better than the condition it is designed to prevent.

I understand the active denying of equal opportunity is the problem but initiating laws, such as Affirmative action laws, are only a legal denial of opportunity to some in favour of others.

So if the results are uneven, at least to some, if half the country's CEOs are not women then there must be a probelm of opportunity in the eyes of the left. Yes?

[msj]

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

Super Kimmy, slayer of stupid threads!

At least, let's hope so....

[Pliny]

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

I suppose I just reiterated Tim's view but equality to quite a few has no qualifier and means simply "sameness". It's the socialist Utopia.

[Pliny]

Super Kimmy, slayer of stupid threads!

At least, let's hope so....

An excellent illustration of left wing intolerance and discouragment of diversity and is most often the left wing argument against it. Thanks for the contribution.

I'm sorry I didn't say exactly what you think I should say.

[Black Dog]

Only a few in Canada it seems. The far left socialist. But it is enabled and becomes a matter of increasing progeressivism through the State's ability to confiscate property and determine it's distribution.

By whom?

But if there is no equality of results then there must be an absence of equality of opportunity.

Not necessarily.

If women are half the population then there are those who will expect the representation in parliament to be half. Or if there is 10% of one race in the population then they would epxect the equivalent to be expected in their political representation. It matters little if those who are granted the right hold any interest in doing so that is how the left feel the demographic should break down.

Legislating an equality of opportunity means some must be denied opportunity in favour of others and it is no different or any better than the condition it is designed to prevent.

I understand the active denying of equal opportunity is the problem but initiating laws, such as Affirmative action laws, are only a legal denial of opportunity to some in favour of others.

So if the results are uneven, at least to some, if half the country's CEOs are not women then there must be a probelm of opportunity in the eyes of the left. Yes?

No. That was easy.

[msj]

An excellent illustration of left wing intolerance and discouragment of diversity and is most often the left wing argument against it. Thanks for the contribution.

I'm sorry I didn't say exactly what you think I should say.

Which only demonstrates that I'm not "left" wing....

[Pliny]

No. That was easy.

So you disagree there can be any paradox in being tolerant and promoting diversity yet attempting to achieve equality?

I see the rich vilified quite often in the name of equality, and it's not about equality of opportunity. It's a fight for the "entitlement" to a higher standard of living to which only a government can be appealed to because no individual will tolerate that attitude of entitlement.

I see quite a few agencies and forces in our society that are not so much concerned with equal opportunity but with making everyone equal. Individuals must stand together to create a force, they must all be one. There can be little tolerance or promotion of diversity or individuality in such an atmosphere. If you choose to disagree, that is; be different, you are ostracized. You must be the same. There is strength in solidarity. Those who disagree obviously need to be forced to agree by law.

I suppose you can stand tall and demand entitlements as long as others stand with you to quash dissenters who can be easily overwhelmed. Storm the Bastille! Make the rich pay! We are one! All for one and one for all! Those who are of a different opinion are exploiters or greedy capitalists or deniers of rights or right wing extremists, are racists, misogynists, and start stupid threads. Those intolerant, anti-equality bastards!

[Pliny]

Which only demonstrates that I'm not "left" wing....

Of course not. You are a socially responsible centrist, right?

PS: And you just enjoy reading stupid threads to illustrate your point.

Edited by Pliny, 22 August 2011 - 09:49 AM.

[Shwa]

So you disagree there can be any paradox in being tolerant and promoting diversity yet attempting to achieve equality?

It is a paradox of semantics, which has already been pointed out. In fact, it seems that being tolerant and promoting diversity is in the attempt to achieve equality. Not a paradox at all.

I see the rich vilified quite often in the name of equality, and it's not about equality of opportunity. It's a fight for the "entitlement" to a higher standard of living to which only a government can be appealed to because no individual will tolerate that attitude of entitlement.

I see "the rich" being vilified just as much by the other "rich" in a thing called 'competition.' There isn't as much money to be made by preying on the poor as there is by preying on the rich. Well, unless you are McDonalds and WalMart.

I see quite a few agencies and forces in our society that are not so much concerned with equal opportunity but with making everyone equal. Individuals must stand together to create a force, they must all be one. There can be little tolerance or promotion of diversity or individuality in such an atmosphere. If you choose to disagree, that is; be different, you are ostracized. You must be the same. There is strength in solidarity. Those who disagree obviously need to be forced to agree by law.

Be thankful that you stand tall with us, who believe you should be free enough to express such views. But I think you are referring to something beyond our familiar democracy right?

I suppose you can stand tall and demand entitlements as long as others stand with you to quash dissenters who can be easily overwhelmed. Storm the Bastille! Make the rich pay! We are one! All for one and one for all! Those who are of a different opinion are exploiters or greedy capitalists or deniers of rights or right wing extremists, are racists, misogynists, and start stupid threads. Those intolerant, anti-equality bastards!

Naw, there is always a place for thoughtful dissent Pliny. Be thankful that it isn't a grave like some regimes...

[Black Dog]

I see the rich vilified quite often in the name of equality, and it's not about equality of opportunity. It's a fight for the "entitlement" to a higher standard of living to which only a government can be appealed to because no individual will tolerate that attitude of entitlement.

Sez you.

I see quite a few agencies and forces in our society that are not so much concerned with equal opportunity but with making everyone equal. Individuals must stand together to create a force, they must all be one. There can be little tolerance or promotion of diversity or individuality in such an atmosphere. If you choose to disagree, that is; be different, you are ostracized. You must be the same. There is strength in solidarity. Those who disagree obviously need to be forced to agree by law.

Examples>generalizations

I suppose you can stand tall and demand entitlements as long as others stand with you to quash dissenters who can be easily overwhelmed. Storm the Bastille! Make the rich pay! We are one! All for one and one for all! Those who are of a different opinion are exploiters or greedy capitalists or deniers of rights or right wing extremists, are racists, misogynists, and start stupid threads. Those intolerant, anti-equality bastards!