What "Conservative Values" aren't based on bigotry?

I will assume permission and copy this excellent perception from Defensive Indifference:

Trump is not an aberration from conservativism, but the culmination of it. All he’s done is strip away the genteel veneer that let them avoid the real human consequences of their views. That includes a deflective insistence on their own definitions of “politeness” and how it is lacking in criticisms of them rather than on the actual content of those views and their effects. They can’t credibly disavow Trump, because they *are *Trump and have been so for quite some time.

I think most conservatives would believe in the “temporarily” thing if things were actually temporary.

What usually happens is that these things aren’t temporary and what starts off as a temporary solution becomes permanent.

He’s a child, so temporarily he is short but what happens if he never grows to be tall enough to see over the fence?

Do you lower the fence? Do you have the ticket cost him less? Do you find him a better seat at the same price as the fence ticket holder?

Life. It isn’t fair like that. And will never be fair like that. The best thing, IMO, that people can do is realize this and work around life’s deficiencies to make their life the best version they can obtain.

It requires work, not governmental ‘permanent’ assistance. Temporary assistance is fine with me (for legal US citizens anyway)

It’s the same basic argument.

Equality of opportunity can be given.

Equality of outcomes can not be guaranteed by any stretch of the word ‘equal’

The liberal will want to cut everyone’s legs off to make everyone the same height.

We’re doing absurd ridiculous parody now right?

I think the scenario can be adjusted to be more reflective of Liberal thinking.

You have one guy standing on the ground looking over the fence. The other guy (equally tall) is standing in a hole, and can’t see over the fence.

You can say “That guy should climb out of the hole, or fill in the hole with dirt.” but that implies he should do more work to get the same view as the other guy. That’s not equality of opportunity.

You can give the guy a box, but the other guy will complain that you gave him a box, and he should have simply had the good sense to not stand in a hole.

Of course, the hole and fence are metaphors, and one doesn’t actually choose where one stands at the fence. It’s also true that the hole didn’t appear in this guy’s spot by accident. But that doesn’t stop the complaint, it’s not like the first guy personally dug the hole, or anything, it’s been there for centuries, and you want him to contribute to a “box fund” to help the second guy out?

nod It’s only fair.

:slight_smile:

He’ll also go to some lengths to make it illegal, or at least difficult, to fill holes or get boxes. Why should that other guy get a special right to use a shovel or a box? You people who want to allow it are the real heightists!

The sheer spitefulness that drives so much of what passes for modern US “conservatism” appears to have become fundamental to it. But it now has a political outlet and a party that caters to it.

How is it “equality of opportunity” if there’s a fence designed so that short people have no opportunity to see the game?

There are always children. And there are some people who will always be short. So it’s always necessary to consider what the fence is doing, yes. Why does that mean that we shouldn’t consider what the fence is doing?

You redesign the fence – in the process both making it possible for the short person to see, and better protecting the tall person from being hit in the face with a ball.

That’s not only a possibility limited to this specific metaphor, either. The person who at the moment is perfectly capable of paying their own medical bills may at any point be hit with an unexpected problem which prevents them from being able to do so.

Life will never make all people the same size, no. But human societies can be designed to accommodate people of different sizes; or not to do so.

Oh come on - read the OP. No matter what the stated position or attitude, some Democrats are going to respond with accusations of racism.

Regards,
Shodan

Hey, you don’t appear to have answered my question from the last page - why do you think minority groups so overwhelmingly favor Democrats, given that the Republican party is so wholly devoid of racism or bigotry?

A flat tax, a conservative proposal, doesn’t seek to tax people equally?

I question why you feel the need to claim childish bromides such as “treating people equally” for liberalism when a super majority of all mainstream ideologies support some conception of it. Very strange.

Shouldn’t we just remove the opaque fence?

No, because then you’re changing the objective of the game, and treating life as it is a competition with inevitable winners and losers definitely is a solid conservative value

A flat tax doesn’t tax people equally, even by its own definition of equal, unless it taxes all entities and all income. Which is I presume why manson1972 asked about capital gains, inheritance income, and corporate income; all of which most conservatives want to tax unequally from wage income. (I suppose you could argue that corporations aren’t persons, except that most conservatives don’t seem to be complaining about court cases declaring that they are.)

And what people are pointing out, repeatedly, is that there’s more than one legitimate definition of “treating people equally”. You can argue that one of the meanings is more important than the other; but claiming that only one of the meanings exists is not a good argument.

If you remove the fence then they both equally have the same chance of getting hit in the face with the ball.

However, by removing the fence and Timmy (playing Candy Crush), gets hit much more often.

Removing the fence certainly gave equality of opportunity. But outcomes still are not the same .

This all boils down to equality vs. equity.

Equality = everyone is treated the same
Equity = everyone gets the same outcome
Both things sound good in theory, but the latter is problematic. Look at this incident, for instance - a concert event deciding that it will charge white people $20 for tickets but people of color only $10 for tickets.

Hmm, life is not a zero sum game. Both sets of people can be winners.

But people entirely reliant on the government, should never be viewed as what others aspire to be.
I will likely go check but does anyone have a source for the people on governmental assistance and the rate which they get off of it due to bettering their position financially?

Sure, works too. It’s just that boxes represent a faster and more immediate solution which addresses the problem right now. That doesn’t preclude looking into better fence designs in the long term. Or into nationalizing ball parks and hanging the last tall person with the guts of the last fencemaker for that matter :p.

But conservatives, caricaturally speaking, go “why should we do anything ? I can see over the fence just fine, other people who are taller than me too, why can’t Timmy ? Sounds like a Timmy problem to me. Plus that fence has been here for generations. The fence is fine. The fence works ! And the Redskins are going to pay for it !” (ok, so the last part is in jest and possibly unfair. But you get my drift)

No, for reasons already explained to you, futilely. It’s *marketed *that way to make it *sound *fair, but it is not.

Did I say wholly devoid? Imply such? Have I said anything in any way that makes that appear to be my position? Maybe I didn’t answer the question because it looked to me like it was asked poorly and in bad faith.

Try asking a question that is worthy of a response.

IMHO, it would be better to describe a flat tax as “unfair but necessary.” It’s not fair that Bob has to pay 35% tax while John only has to pay $10%, but if Bob is far wealthier, then it’s the only way to fill the nation’s coffers. If Bob is earning a billion dollars every year, the nation needs that tax revenue to fund all of its various programs. It’s practicality overriding fairness.