JohnT,
Life isn’t fair in their selection of worthy vs unworthy individuals. The problem is still one of opportunity vs outcome. No dollar amount needs to be assigned to worthiness, however when you start handing out money, the assignment starts.
You cannot guarantee, ever, that outcomes are going to equate when opportunities are equal.
[quote=“Velocity, post:12, topic:837176”]
[li]Free speech (generally defended more by conservatives than liberals these days)[/li][/QUOTE]
Practically every single example of a “free speech” claim made specifically by conservatives and not supported by liberals is in a fact a demand to be exempt from the well-established rule that guests and customers are bound to respect rules set by the property-owning host (e.g. the butthurt whines about so-called “social media censorship”). This is actually another case of self-styled “conservatives” circular-filing actual conservative principles.
[QUOTE]
[li]Freedom of religion is often cited as an excuse for homophobia or whatnot[/li][/QUOTE]
Taking the examples of “religious freedom” claims specific to conservatives (see above), they turn out to be a special case of the (actual conservative) belief that businesses should have the right to refuse service on any basis the owner chooses. The only reason to invoke “religious freedom” is as a smoke screen to avoid standing behind the position that businesses should be free to exclude blacks, Jews, etc as well as gays.
[QUOTE]
[li]Whether low taxation is good economic policy or not is its own debate, but it can be fairly said to have nothing to do with bigotry.[/li][/QUOTE]
:dubious:
You mean like, grouping conservatives together, treating them as a monolithic group, and refusing to acknowledge that Trump support could vary widely among the group or not exist at all?
This is the liberal conception of equal I have been contrasting with the conservative conception. The conservative views this conception as useful, whether it is too simplistic is irrelevant.
There are different ways of conceiving equal treatment. That is why when someone says they favor equal treatment, they should follow with how they conceive it. Otherwise, we don’t know what they really mean.
Thank you for your response, though. It clearly and succinctly demonstrates the progressive religious impulse to punish. The ideology grew out of 19th century fanatical religious movements.
It is the point from a conservative perspective. Taxing equal dollar amounts or equal percentages is viewed as more just than taxing based on some arbitrary concept like fairness or “hurt”. They perhaps recognize that pain is a most subjective human experience and to attempt to base a tax system around equating pain across the populace would be an example of hubris.
If you voted for Trump either enthusiastically or reluctantly, for multiple issues or only one, then you’re a Trump voter and responsibility for your action is on you. How is that hard to accept?
That is the opposite of treating people equally. It is the most direct example imaginable of treating people differently to achieve the desired outcome.
And even by your butchered definition, there are no equal outcomes. The poor person is not equal financially to Bill Gates, or even to Joe Sixpack making $40k/yr even after the wholly disparate tax treatment you give to each.
Is it “life” doing the selection, or you?
No, and no one is arguing for equal outcomes. That’s a strawman, to excuse refusing to fix or even acknowledge unequal opportunities.
Didn’t you just claim it was “life” doing that?
You keep saying that BDS is anti-semitic, but I’m not personally seeing it myself. It looks like a boycott aimed at the Israeli government, and not Jewish people in general. I did some googling and found some unsourced quotes. Do you have evidence that BDS is bigoted against Jewish people as opposed to be an advocacy organization aimed at changing Israeli policy?
Not in the case of “de-platforming”, where liberals make threats of violence, disrupt speakers on campuses with whom they disagree, etc. That certainly violates the rule that guests and customers are bound to respect the rules set by the host, and it’s not coming from conservatives it’s coming from progressives under the well-known liberal principle of “free speech for me but not for thee”.
Regards,
Shodan
Conservatives often falter and give up too much ground to the liberal by claiming they favor equal opportunity. As if equal opportunity is any more plausible than equal outcome. They should be clear that they mean equal opportunity to be equal treatment by government.
For example, they don’t believe, or shouldn’t believe, that everyone should have equal educational opportunity. Is a conservative going to intervene if a family sends their child to a superior private school? I would hope not.
Elvis, you should read along the rest of the thread and see for yourself that people aren’t wanting equal outcomes (Hint: They are)
And as far as picking, no it isn’t me that is picking. Nor would it be me picking if we ever got to a universal healthcare, what gets covered and for whom.
The choices have to be made since we live with finite resources, how and who and why are all reasonable questions to ask about those dollars you (general you) seemingly want to just give to everyone.
Which is baffling, considering I already said that wasn’t the point. Although maybe that’s why it’s not the result, it could be, I’unno.
How is it fair for some people to pay (proportionally) almost nothing, while others pay a significant amount which has a real impact on their quality of life? Tax a billionaire 20% and he’s still got more money than he could spend in a thousand lifetimes. He isn’t going to feel that at all. Tax someone on 30k he same percentage and that’ll have a big knock-on effect in every area of their life.
Treating a billionaire and a warehouse worker on 30k the same even though they’re massively, massively different isn’t equal. It’s a child’s understanding of equality.
This is a fast moving thread so I’m going to ask about this again just in case anyone missed it.
Is spreading a conspiracy theory based on multiple distortions of the truth that accuses a wealthy Jewish person of using his power and influence to manipulate the media anti-semitic?
e.g.
It’s certainly aiding and abetting anti-semitism, IMO. Just as supporting Trump is aiding and abetting misogyny and bigotry.
Yet in every other venture in life that is how they are treated. When they go to the grocery store, pay the electric bill, buy a pack of smokes, renew their drivers license, or buy a bushel of tomatoes, society takes from everyone equally. You want to buy tenderloin steak at Publix? It’s $18.99/lb. That price is the same whether you are Bill Gates or Dave Gates.
That’s equality right there and if that is a child’s view, then society must be children, because we do it in almost every respect save for income tax rates.
But you all don’t want to treat people equally, you want people to feel pain equally. And as I said, it doesn’t work. Charge Bill Gates $1000/lb for tenderloin. It still doesn’t “hurt” him as much.
So where is the equality now? Or to be more equal do we need complete wealth redistribution?
The maximum wage subject to social security tax is $132,900. Where does that fall on your “equality” scale?
What started this diversion was that a prior poster said that a liberal value (and implicitly not a conservative one) is to “treat people equally.”
When pointed out that liberals do not treat people equally, the goalposts were shifted and said that the equality of outcomes were the yardstick.
When pointed out that that is not achieved either, you say that neither is the point which leaves me to wonder what is left of this whole equality argument that is a staple of left wing philosophy. Not treatment, not outcome, not any type of equality at all, yet “treating people equally” is the mark to hit.
Perfectly. Everyone only gets benefits that are pegged to their own wage up to that maximum wage. You get a percentage of what you made to help to maintain your lifestyle in retirement. Or, I suppose, you want to treat the rich unequally by taking more money from them in excess of the benefits you will pay them?
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”