slug.com slug.com

3 4

Equality is bullshit. If you sit down all day and eat don't exercise you don't deserve a 6 pack abs. The guy that busted his ass gets a 6 pack abs. Communism says thats not equity so we got to make sure its illegal to have a 6 pack abs.

Applied to money: men did the vast majority of work built houses fix cars etc yet women should be paid the same as men? Should a man also get paid the same as a hooker? Equity is bullshit

Focus 6 Aug 1
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

All mankind is born free, yet everywhere we are in chains. We're each and all thrown into cultures we neither choose nor have any real degree of authority upon. We receive much of who we become before we're even off the teat.

Men might--maybe--do most of the work toward building civilizations, but toward fruitful and multiplying? Men bust a nut and and women bust a baby. Men hopefully become fathers, women are mothers. Equity is bullshit, yes, but responsibility and cooperation tend to turn it up if we keep it on the radar.

@Focus

what - are you 12? - go away and leave the adults to discuss these things. Go back to your game boy or WTF it is that you do to occupy your time - because you lack all credibility when posting and commenting this immature BS.

If 50 men fuck a woman there's probably some rape going on, and while the alpha might not be the one to sow seed, he probably plowed the first row. The men of his pack promote his value through election.

Responsible and cooperative reciprocity among thrice male, female, and male-female in-group selection results in cultures and civilizations that don't rely on rape as a normal procreative method.

1

You make some good points

Please - indulge us - do tell us what "good points" this person makes?

@iThink If I got it right he seems to point out that if you don't make an effort then you can't expect a handout ,the rest of it is too confusing for me

5

Equality and equity is too seperate things and important that they are well defined.

Equality refers to how we treat everyone, the opportunities society should provide to every citizen.
These things are generally good and the goal of equality brings long term benefit.

Equity refers to the outcomes of the individual citizens. The goal of equal outcomes or equity necessarily requires unequality.
These things sound good but they are not and the goal of equity brings long term ruin.

Wikipedia will change it.

Quote: Equality refers to how we treat everyone, the opportunities society should provide to every citizen.
These things are generally good and the goal of equality brings long term benefit.

Really..... explain the shower of total shit your society is now producing using the social methods you appear to admire.

You are born free; not equal. A fact that not many folk fully comprehend.

Society 'Should' provide to every citizen... says who?

Perhaps you are awarding a crown to the wrong pile of crap,

Suggest you start with 'freedom' and stay with that until you fully understand the term

@Felix

Read what I wrote and stop imagining what I wrote. Please show me where I said any of the nonsense you said there?

I said NOTHING of how we are born but how we should treat each other.

Ok, so you don’t think everyone should have the right to vote?
An equal vote?
Everyone should not have the equal right to speak or defend themselves or get basic education to read and write.
Everyone should not have the protection of some kind of police agains theft and assault?

Think for a change and stop attacking people who are attempting to help you by clarifying the core issue we are facing here.

We need to have core equal rights. That is the opportunities and abilities that everyone need to have in order to have a long term stable society.
What each individual do with those rights are up to them.

Equal outcomes or equity, which means that irrespective of your inate abilities or personal decisions, we should all enjoy equal fruits of our collective labour.
This is of course evil and leads to eventual collapse of society.

It is very important that you understand the difference and defend the former and oppose the latter.
Politicians love to confuse the two.

@Hanno
Basic biology is the confusion..... now read your own words for further confirmation

A desire to do the 'equality thingy' is the driver behind most socialistic rationale.... its not unusual .... just sickening to observe the continual childishness behind the philosophy.

So, I'll try again....You were born free..... 'Not equal'... how hard is that to get to grips with.

Society has an obligation to maintain freedom.....nothing more!. A simple procedure one would think.
But watch someone come along and F... it all up.

Savvy yet!

@Felix As far as equality goes....the only equality that government should strive for is equal justice under the law. That does not mean equal punishment under the law so justice is given some parameters to work around.

But yeah...equality has always been the justification for socialist causes.

@Focus
So where exactly did I mention free health care?
Do you also struggle like Felix with comprehension reading skills?

What equality society provides depends on the level of the society.
Hence I did not specify what it is. What we can provide now to give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed is very different to what it was a thousand years ago.

Equal treatment for all is the foundation of all long term successful societies.

And that starts with the lack of discrimination.
Lack of oppression of freedoms such as speech and movement.
Right to associate or disassociate with others.

Equal rights. Crucial.

Equal outcomes not desirable at all.

If you do not understand the fundamental difference between these two concepts you are no better than the politicians who purposefully confuse them.

I said nothing about the straw men arguments you and @Felix are making up.

@Hanno

It must be a trifle odd to you that one decides to begin at the start of all confusion.

Go back to the beginning..... you are free and totally unconditioned.
Free from all the BS..... to whom are you going to offer your allegiance?.

Try self.... the freeman

@Felix
Hmmm … Interesting …
And where exactly do you find this … “Freeman”?

I’ve lived quite a while and sometimes been quite estranged from others over long periods of time and still, society … of some or whatever sort … keeps popping up.

I’ll stick to Equal and ignore Equitable …

@Felix, @FrankZeleniuk
Uh … Socialist Causes might use the term “Equality” but,
first, they never truly mean “Equal” because there is ALWAYS those who are somehow “More” (Directors, Politburo … call it what you will)
Second, they’re simply typically misusing the word. Perhaps “Sameness” is more applicable.

Laws and Punishment should be equally applied to ALL people … same rights and etc. (Equal) from birth but then, shortly thereafter merit will topple the “Equal” aspect … all that can be expected or wished for is that each individual starts from a plain and level position relative to everyone else

@Bay0Wulf True. As I said socialists use the term as justification for their causes.
I do however disagree that punishments be equally applied. In fact, I am of the opinion that punishment does not actually serve any purpose. Restitution of damages and compensation for victims should be more a priority. It might restore a sense of worth to the wrong-doer more than punishment would and see some compensation to victims of crime.

@Focus
“let's say you have private property and are a racist. Should the Government have authority to tell you who can and cannot visit?”

This is outside the scope of my original comment or the original post. It is not effective to expand the subject like that.
However I will answer even if it is so loaded that the answer is boring.

The obvious answer is no, the government should not have that authority.

Having access to other peoples private property is not a fundamental human right. There is little food you can argue about such a right. Even though such a right do exist in Sweden and Finland with some restrictions. However you cannot even begin to compare Sweden and Finland with other countries (although the recent immigration crisis in Sweden is changing that very quickly).

So no, the government should not have the rigjt.

@Focus
No,
It is the right to associate and to disassociate.

These questions have been considered and answered decades ago.

Of course they are not always simple to apply hence I said you need to understand these concepts and the differences.

That is why business have a sign in most countries that says right of entry reserved or something like that.

@Focus
And so you have answered your own question. Like I said, this has been discussed ad nausea before and your conclusion is a logical one.

It is one of the reasons why basic human rights and understanding what they mean vs the nonsense communist politicians are pushing must be clearly understood.

The difference between equality and equity and why it is so important to understand the difference.

Communists do not believe in private property. Hence the concern with the “great reset”.

I am not saying applying sound core human rights are fool proof. But it is a good start. And the basis for that is equal treatment and opportunities for everyone.
However this will never lead to equal outcomes, and this must never be the goal.

In practice achieving this is complex and this why we have to talk and think about these things… a lot.

@FrankZeleniuk
“ Restitution of damages and compensation for victims should be more a priority. It might restore a sense of worth to the wrong-doer more than punishment would and see some compensation to victims of crime.”

Okay, in terms of some “Simple Crimes” I can see how that might possibly work … maybe.
But …

  1. Some scam artist bilks dozens of people of thousands of dollars and then proceeds to spend the funds on lifestyle and legal bills. The funds are gone. How do the victims get compensated?
  2. Joe Blow sells your kid drugs … fentanyl … your kid dies. How do you (the victim) get compensated?
  3. Nutjob McHatred shoots up a neighborhood… a mall … a school … several people are injured &/or die. How do these victims (or remaining families) get compensated?
  4. Nancy Pelosi & Husband get convicted of Massive Insider Trading … in the Millions of Dollars. How does one determine who the “victims” are? How do they get compensated?
  5. Homeless Harriet is finally caught, tried and found guilty of Massive Amounts of Theft (via “Shoplifting). Basically, Harriet is broke … How do the victims get compensated?

Your suggestion sounds good at first … a takeoff from Nebuchadnezzar and Hammurabi … “An Eye for an Eye” … I could live with that … but “Crime” these days are much more convoluted especially when considering “White Collar Crime”.

Restitution, Compensation … an honest effort to make the Victim “Whole” again … sounds good in theory but … what happens when the perpetrator(s) haven’t the wherewithal or ability to provide said compensation?

@FrankZeleniuk, @Focus
@Focus … Do you know you are a nitwit?

  1. At the time when Slaveowners (of ANY Color .. including Black … in the “New World” ) were procuring slaves, it was almost 100% through purchasing … though the American Indian (including central & south pre European civilizations) often gained slaves through warfare (ie POWs).

  2. Slavery was a normal Worldwide “thing” … slaves came in every color and ethnicity … every country and almost every culture had and used slaves. Selling ones own kin … or even one’s SELF … into slavery was often used to pay off debts. (FYI; The word “Slave” is a takeoff of the word “Slav” … an Eastern European Causcoid People frequently taken into slavery by Mongols, Tartars, Muslims & Etc.)

  3. It could be said that until the advent of the USA, the ENTIRE World was a form of Master/Slave reality. EVERYBODY who was born essentially BELONGED to Somebody … be that a King, Queen, Emperor … there was maybe the illusion of some sort of self will or freedom but Your Life was in the Palm of a “Noble” of one sort or other who COULD Choose to Kill You for practically any reason whatsoever.

I could easily continue but perhaps this is enough to get you to spend some time looking into the Historical Record …

Oh … a Parting Thought … the Current Reality is that “Slavery” in various versions is STILL ALIVE and WELL in Many Parts of the World and, in raw numbers, May Exceed ANY Other Time in History.

@Bay0Wulf

Okay, in terms of some “Simple Crimes” I can see how that might possibly work … maybe.

Of course, some crimes are so horrendous that no amount of compensation or restitution will salve the loss. There are psychopaths that, until some sort of understanding of their destructive nature is arrived at and something can be done about it, should never be allowed to participate in a free society.

I am not saying all punishment be eliminated.

You know, I've heard that prisoners of heinous crimes should not be allowed to profit from their crimes.
A murderer, for instance, cannot write a book about his crime to make money. So he just sits in jail and rots or if capital punishment is an option he is executed. What good is that?
Some relief out of revenge may bring some closure to victims. But how about if he wrote his book and made a few million from it which was appropriated for the victim(s) of his crime. Of course, incarceration or separation from society must be a part of any rehabilitation. Until maybe as long as the criminal lives or until rehabilitation has been realized. Pure punishment alone helps no one really and is a societal expense.

There are several benefits from a balance of punishment and recompense:
The victims receive some compensation.
They will understand exactly what happened, as grisly as it may be, in the case of a book deal. The victim(s) should be the ones to decide if a deal like this can be made. They may not want to know or anyone else to know any details of the crime. Clearly, they should have a say in the punishment and form of compensation within the parameters of the law and justice.
The rehabilitation of a criminal must include a restoration of an ability to contribute to society. He does not gain this if he is just punished. He just winds up feeling, once his sentence is served, that he has paid his debt along with some level of resentment for being forced to do so. He cannot regain a sense of self-worth without providing some compensation to his victim(s) that are just left to suffer - or to society.
If he is to return to society he has to understand that it is necessary to contribute to it because, after all, it's what every rational individual is doing in a society - helping others for mutual benefit.

One thing is certain - the State should never benefit from a crime or they will make criminals of everyone. Right now government punishes people by fining them alone and it has gotten out of hand. Now they just try to think of rules and laws that will primarily increase their revenues, and the pulic safety or interest is secondary.

This idea of balancing punishment with compensation or making amends is not what is in our penal system or justice system currently so it is just something to think about.

@FrankZeleniuk
Yeah … well, you make several interesting points.
Personally if a person commits a crime bad enough to have it deemed “heinous” I’d rather trot them out the side door and put a bullet in their head.
I’m not a “nice” guy.

@Bay0Wulf I used to be a nice guy. Almost killed me.

But yeah...the time and circumstances may require your solution.

@Focus
I tend to prefer the honesty of violence. All those “doing better” things tend to involve lots of sneaky hypocracies and/or hypocrites.

Very few individuals do anything for any reason if its not for Their Own Good.

@FrankZeleniuk

If you are ever bored read “ The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry – Jon Ronson”.

Very humoured look at psychopaths…. And his conclusions.

He basically says after 70 years of trying to understand and help psychopaths, the only solution is to lock them away permanently.
The actual solution is to kill every single one of them…. The problem is you need a psychopath to do that!
😂

But yes, you make very good points to a very difficult problem.

@Hanno

Thanks.

The problem with the mental health industry is that "scientists" think they will discover the content of one's mind in his brain. Of course, to think of mental health as a "science" is to abandon anything that is not empirical and there are some obvious metaphysical manifestations of life. Psychiatry and psychology are currently battling it out. Psychiatry, being a part of the medical industry, feels the solutions to mental health problems will be found in a pill, or a shock or surgery so it is sidelining psychology and psychotherapy that are not medical practices and thus can't prescribe drugs or shock or surgery but deal with the thought process of individual's.

I don't know if you can find the book these days but a wild read is Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz's book, "The Myth of Mental Illness".

When I was younger I was interested in psychology. I read some Freud and Jung. I went to university and was planning on majoring in psychology but after participating in a few post graduate psychology experiments became rather disabused of the idea. There is always a deception in a psychology experiment and if you are aware of that you can sway results. So I never had much faith in the subject after that.

@Focus
A short educational video by Thomas Sowell that is germain to the topic. Here’s a bit of Actual History related to those “Racist Whites”

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:357328
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.