Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
At least, that’s what he says, and there’s some interesting commentary that goes with that:
It’s true that for a long time, an inexcusably long time, I was a registered Democrat. But even then, I never called myself a liberal. Because I came of age in the 1960s, I associated liberals with the punks I knew who called cops “pigs,” called soldiers “baby killers” and used any and all means to dodge the draft, and then had the hypocrisy to announce they did so because they were avowed pacifists.
Being in my 20s myself, I knew these people and I knew it was fear of battle or being bossed around by top sergeants, typically tough guys from the South, that motivated them to head off either to Canada or to one of the many left-wing shrinks who were willing to lie about their mental disorders and or verify they were homosexuals.
Fifty years later, they’re still hypocrites, but instead of being college students, they’re running colleges, TV networks, movie studios, solar panel companies and the New York Times. And, what’s more, they continue to lie. Most recently, a sample of journalists lied to a pollster about their political affiliation, a mere 28% admitting to being Democrats and 50% claiming to be registered Independents.
Inasmuch as we already know that at least 90% of those in the news game always vote for liberals and that their campaign contributions are even more lopsided than that, you have to wonder why they even bother lying about something as transparent as their political bias. All you really have to do is turn on the network news or pick up a daily newspaper, Time magazine, the New Yorker, Vanity Fair or any of the slick glossies devoted to fashion and cosmetics, to realize that they should, by all rights, be paid directly by the DNC for their propaganda efforts.
He’s talking about this, I think (via Hot Air):
In 2013, about half of all journalists (50.2 percent) said they were political independents, up about 18 percentage points from 2002.
I think Burt’s on to something here. Whatever change has taken place since 2002 isn’t about forsaking the democrat party to turn independent; it’s about lying and getting away with it. Also, we have a somewhat more subtle problem with the liberals of yesteryear no longer being twenty-somethings. Youngsters are still relatively powerless. We expect big areas of responsibility to be run by someone in their fifties or sixties. What is changed in the here-and-now is that yesteryear’s hippies are in that bracket, running things. And they’re not too keen on cause-and-effect, they don’t necessarily “feel” that one thing results from another thing.
As a consequence of that, you see all sorts of laws that don’t really count for anything because they aren’t enforced. And, you see other scare-quote “laws” that nobody has taken the time to legislate, or even to write down, laws that would violate disputably sacrosanct rights if they did exist in writing; nevertheless, being enforced.
The Mrs. and I were looking at more potential new home-sites last night, and once again I was allowed to witness the same indefinite and indeterminate round of speculation, in response to “can we barbeque here?” Here in the Golden State, the answer to any & all such questions is really one of “nobody-knows.” I wish people would start replying with it, when it is the correct answer and nothing else is. It is, after all, what we expect to hear now when we ask the question. Not just about barbeques, but about anything.
What’s really happening? I’m reminded of a third-of-a-century-old movie.
MARCUS: This concludes our proposal. Thank you for your attention.
SPOCK: It literally is Genesis.
KIRK: The power of creation.
SPOCK: Have they proceeded with their experiment?
KIRK: Well, the tape was made about a year ago. I can only assume they’ve reached Stage Two by now.
McCOY: But, dear Lord, do you think we’re intelligent enough to… Suppose, what if this thing were used where life already exists?
SPOCK: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.
McCOY: It’s new matrix? …Do you have you any idea what you’re saying?
SPOCK: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.
McCOY: Not anymore! Now we can do both at the same time! According to myth, the Earth was created in six days. Now, watch out! Here comes Genesis, we’ll do it for you in six minutes.
SPOCK: Really, Doctor McCoy, you must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing.
“It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.” Prelutsky’s pals from the sixties were intent on creating something new. “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.” Key to this vision of creating something new, was demolishing the old.
Me, in the comments:
The proprietor should be able to control what goes on in his business. It’s like being Captain of the ship. The authority goes with the responsibility; the restaurant-owner has a responsibility, for which he will be held to account, to ensure that his patrons do not have to endure an unpleasant dining experience. I agree, to throw someone out because of what he is, as opposed to because of what he does, is wrong. Most conservatives would agree with that; it’s part of what conservatism is, people should prosper and suffer according to their behavior and not according to their class membership. Who is the final arbiter over whether business is being turned away because of actions, or because of what a person is? The proprietor, the Captain of the ship. It simply isn’t effective for the decision to be made by anyone else.
It’s part of what makes society go. So it is to be expected that liberals want to destroy it.
Look at anything liberals are trying to build, and you’ll invariably find — whether they want to discuss it or not — there’s something else being destroyed. Identify any social custom that has leveraged some responsibility for preserving our society and allowing it to continue functioning, and you’ll invariably find — whether liberals want to discuss it or not — there is an effort of theirs to destroy whatever that thing is.
Their movement is a “Genesis” device destroying whatever existed before, “in favor of its new matrix.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mkfreeberg: Most conservatives would agree with that; it’s part of what conservatism is, people should prosper and suffer according to their behavior and not according to their class membership.
Your position is incoherent. Consider segregation in the U.S. Yes, it was liberals who wanted to “demolish the old”, which in this case was segregation. It was conservatives who resisted this change, and wanted to maintain the existing system. So conservatives did support the class system. Indeed, conservatism supported the nobility in its day, as well.
The coherent argument is that the successes of liberalism has led to overreach, or that the changes are occurring much faster than they can be absorbed by society.
- Zachriel | 06/13/2014 @ 09:20I’ve always considered the following lines to be closer to modern progs:
Maltz: “Impressive. They can make planets.”
- P_Ang | 06/13/2014 @ 14:44Kruge: “Oh yes. New cities, homes in the country. Your woman at your side, children playing at your feet, and overhead, fluttering in the breeze, the flag of the Federation. Charming…Station!”
Kruge: “Even as our emissaries negotiate for peace with the Federation, we will act for the preservation of our race. We will seize the secret of this weapon- the secret of ultimate power!”
(Kruge then proceeds to rig the voting machine)
What does one call the dupes of communist tyrants, instructed to refer to themselves as “liberal” (or progressive, or ad nauseam) when citing “Fairness, …it’s for “our” children…”?
- CaptDMO | 06/13/2014 @ 16:08Yes, it was liberals who wanted to “demolish the old”, which in this case was segregation. It was conservatives who resisted this change, and wanted to maintain the existing system. So conservatives did support the class system.
Refuted in other threads. It would necessarily have to mean the supporters of caste systems, conservatives back in the nineteenth century, are liberals now just because “common usage” of the words has determined that conservatives supported castes back then and it is liberals who support caste systems today. That’s classic circular reasoning.
Meanwhile, if liberals are pushing for the same revolution now that they were supporting back in the 1960’s, at some point a “coherent” thought process would have to stop perceiving this as any sort of “change,” and start to characterize it as what it really is: A thoughtless, generational tic. Fifty years is a long time for an overnight revolution, after all.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 03:50mkfreeberg: That’s classic circular reasoning.
Add circular reasoning to the things you don’t understand. Start with the standard definitions.
Liberals advocate greater equality.
Conservatives defend tradition.
If the traditional society includes racial segregation, for instance, then liberals may advocate affirmative action based on race in order to achieve greater equality. That’s not circular reasoning.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 05:37Add circular reasoning to the things you don’t understand. Start with the standard definitions.
Y’all can do anything with y’all’s lists y’all like to do. But see, this is why I think it would be good for y’all to get into programming: Writing something down doesn’t mean it’s real. It doesn’t even mean the compiler will be able to compile it, even though to the novice who just wrote it, it looks perfect.
If the traditional society includes racial segregation, for instance, then liberals may advocate affirmative action based on race in order to achieve greater equality. That’s not circular reasoning.
The liberalism itself, that we know today, is the traditional society that we know today. It’s been going on so long that people not yet born when it started, are now old and gray.
Y’all’s characterization of “common usage,” how it is to be interpreted, what it means, why it means that, is a classic example of circular reasoning. If y’all don’t understand how that is, it isn’t anybody else’s problem.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 06:10mkfreeberg</b.: Writing something down doesn’t mean it’s real.
No, but it can make it easy to see that your claim of circular reasoning was false. As for the definitions, we have provided multiple citations, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly resources, newspapers past and current, and politicians from various periods.
mkfreeberg</b.: The liberalism itself, that we know today, is the traditional society that we know today.
Liberalism is the advocacy of liberty and equality. Conservatives either resist continued liberal change, or want to return to past social conventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
That’s why being against birth control is considered a conservative position, while being in favor of gay marriage is considered a liberal position.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 06:18…it can make it easy to see that your claim of circular reasoning was false.
It can offer an illusion that it was false.
Liberals are for what’s new and for greater equality, we know this because of common usage.
What was “new” back in the nineteenth century was the idea that people should be treated equally without regard to their former conditions of involuntary servitude. What is “new” today is the opposite, that we need to sort people into separate classes and treat them differently. Except that isn’t new at all, liberals have been fighting for that for fifty years or so. They hold themselves up as champions of equality but can’t provide too many examples, while their opponents offer many examples of them opposing it — and when liberals DO provide examples of their support for equality, what we find is they have no comprehension of what it really means.
But we’re supposed to accept their view of conservatives as champions of the institution of slavery — because they have managed to get that successfully sold. “Common usage.” We can fairly categorize an argument as circular reasoning if it relies on: A proves B and B proves A. That’s precisely what is happening with this idea that liberalism and conservatism have exchanged places over the last century.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 08:02mkfreeberg: Liberals are for what’s new and for greater equality, we know this because of common usage.
The political left is defined as advocating for greater equality. Liberals are generally associated with liberty and equality, though individuals vary according to how they strike that balance.
mkfreeberg: What was “new” back in the nineteenth century was the idea that people should be treated equally without regard to their former conditions of involuntary servitude.
Not just involuntary servitude, but the aristocratic power structure.
mkfreeberg: But we’re supposed to accept their view of conservatives as champions of the institution of slavery — because they have managed to get that successfully sold.
No, that’s how the term was used then, and that’s how the term is used now. It refers to people trying to preserve traditional social structures. We keep providing examples, which you ignore.
mkfreeberg: We can fairly categorize an argument as circular reasoning if it relies on: A proves B and B proves A.
That’s not the structure of the argument, even as you presented it. What you probably mean is it is incoherent, that the definition leads to contradictions. That’s not correct either, but it’s not circular in any case.
If there are unequal classes in society, someone on the right will tend to want to maintain these class distinctions, with all that entails. Someone on the left may advocate eliminating class distinctions, but treating classes differently in the short term in order to equalize the social situation. Whether you agree with such a policy or not, it is neither circular reasoning nor incoherent.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 08:17The political left is defined as advocating for greater equality.
And whoever is defining it that way (notably, y’all don’t say) must be doing it wrong. They advocate for the opposite. Repeatedly. Stridently. Intractably. Ceaselessly.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 09:08mkfreeberg: notably, y’all don’t say
We’ve provided citations to dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly work, newspapers past and present, and political speakers from different periods.
Zachriel: If there are unequal classes in society, someone on the right will tend to want to maintain these class distinctions, with all that entails. Someone on the left may advocate eliminating class distinctions, but treating classes differently in the short term in order to equalize the social situation. Whether you agree with such a policy or not, it is neither circular reasoning nor incoherent.
mkfreeberg: They advocate for the opposite. Repeatedly. Stridently. Intractably. Ceaselessly.
Can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 09:11We’ve provided citations to dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly work, newspapers past and present, and political speakers from different periods.
Cited or not, the idea is simply unsustainable.
“By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” — Paul Krugman.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 09:31Zachriel: Can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
mkfreeberg: Cited or not, the idea is simply unsustainable.
If you are referring to the core concepts of liberalism and conservatism, the definitions have been persistent for generations, so that’s obviously not true.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 12:14M: Cited or not, the idea is simply unsustainable.
Z: If you are referring to the core concepts of liberalism and conservatism, the definitions have been persistent for generations, so that’s obviously not true.
Ah, now we come to the heart of it. “Persistent for generations” makes something true, or rather, makes it “obviously not true” that the idea is “unsustainable.”
The proof that this is a falsehood, would be anything that has persisted for generations that happens to be unsustainable. Human history is filled with many such things. Socialism, for instance. The Divine Right of Kings would be another example. Before that, any civilization that endured for “generations” but then eventually crumbled…of which, there have been several.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 19:38mkfreeberg: The proof that this is a falsehood, would be anything that has persisted for generations that happens to be unsustainable.
Um, words are defined by usage, even if you think the idea is mythological.
mkfreeberg: Socialism, for instance.
Socialism is defined as a type of economic system, even if socialism is wrong-headed.
mkfreeberg: The Divine Right of Kings would be another example.
The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine, even if you reject it.
The definition of unicorn doesn’t change because you don’t believe in unicorns.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 05:08Um, words are defined by usage, even if you think the idea is mythological.
Um, there is a much bigger problem with it than me thinking it’s mythological. This has been explained to y’all repeatedly.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 06:50As usual, you refuse to answer basic questions about your position. Please note that we responded to your examples. You ignored the replies.
Can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 07:57As usual, you refuse to answer basic questions about your position. Please note that we responded to your examples. You ignored the replies.
Okay I’ll add it to my list of things to do, but it’s Father’s Day. It might fall off the stack.
Maybe y’all can note it in y’all’s journal-or-whatever. Write down WHATEVER y’all want to.
But it would be more honest to say “you refuse to conduct this discussion according to our script” than “you refuse to answer questions.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:17mkfreeberg: It might fall off the stack.
Sure, but you’ll take the time to post a bunch of words anyway.
mkfreeberg: “you refuse to conduct this discussion according to our script”
You can respond any way you want. And we’ll point out when you refuse to answer relevant questions—which is just about always.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:20Sure, but you’ll take the time to post a bunch of words anyway.
Right, I prioritize things in a way y’all don’t like. Learn to cope. It’s a big world out there filled with people who don’t do things y’all’s way.
Like…logging in to blogs with identifiable, or at the very least unique, IDs…
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:31mkfreeberg: I prioritize things in a way y’all don’t like.
Sure. You’ll make claims, but refuse to defend them, or even discuss them. So we point out that your claims are unsupported and that you refuse to discuss them. Learn to cope. It’s a big world out there filled with people who don’t do things y’all’s way.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:33ou’ll make claims, but refuse to defend them, or even discuss them…
…according to y’all’s script.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:35mkfreeberg: …according to y’all’s script.
No. According to any fair reading of the thread.
Can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:37No. According to any fair reading of the thread.
False. My reading of the thread is fair. I say so.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:39mkfreeberg: My reading of the thread is fair. I say so.
Sure you do, but don’t support it.
Can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:42Sure you do, but don’t support it.
Say the anonymous people of unknown quantity! Hah!
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:44mkfreeberg: Say the anonymous people of unknown quantity!
It doesn’t matter what we say, but what we can show. Watch!
Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:49It doesn’t matter what we say…
False.
Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
My willingness is not an issue, as I have responded to y’all’s questions, and y’all haven’t responded to mine.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:55mkfreeberg: I have responded to y’all’s questions
No. You’ve posted words, but rarely responded. You avoid responding. We can only gather it’s because you can’t defend your viewpoint, but find it too difficult to change your mind.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:56M: I have responded to y’all’s questions
Z: No. You’ve posted words…
What’s this? I’m not qualified to sit in judgment of the quality of my own responses? As we’ve seen y’all do so many times with y’all’s? And we don’t even know who you are.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 06:02mkfreeberg: I’m not qualified to sit in judgment of the quality of my own responses?
Heh. More words that don’t answer the question. Are you willing to respond to examples to test the limits of your own definition? If not, just say so.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:08Heh. More words that don’t answer the question. Are you willing to respond…
This is fascinating. Y’all’s arguments are so feeble that y’all can’t make them or support them, without all sorts of special advantages y’all award to y’all’selves during the discussion? I always suspected this was the case, now it looks like I’m seeing confirmation.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 06:29mkfreeberg: Y’all’s arguments are so feeble that y’all can’t make them or support them
More words that don’t answer the question. Are you willing to respond to examples to test the limits of your own definition?
We do support our arguments. Concerning political definitions, we have provided multiple citations, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly resources, newspapers past and current, and politicians from various periods. We also answer questions about our position.
Meanwhile, we are willing to listen to counterarguments, but you don’t seem to be willing to support your arguments, or answer questions about them to see how well they hold up.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:38More words that don’t answer the question.
I have picked up the vibe that the question was posed for purposes other than collecting information. So why should I bother to answer?
I have come to the conclusion that these sessions of “We asked a question and you didn’t answer” are y’all’s way of admitting defeat. So by all means, do continue to do it a few more times.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 17:45mkfreeberg: I have picked up the vibe that the question was posed for purposes other than collecting information. So why should I bother to answer?
To clarify your position, and to communicate ideas. Are you willing to respond to examples to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 17:54M: I have picked up the vibe that the question was posed for purposes other than collecting information. So why should I bother to answer?
Z: To clarify your position, and to communicate ideas. Are you willing to respond to examples to test the limits of your own definition?
When people ask questions of me, I have the final say in what the answer is. Just as I give it to them, when I’m the one asking the questions. That’s how it works.
As y’all have repeatedly demonstrated, that is not how it works in y’all’s world — the question-asker is the one who decides how the conversation should go. If I answer y’all’s question and the conversation doesn’t go the way y’all think it should, y’all start throwing a fit that the question isn’t being answered. Occasionally, I do take the time to answer the question and y’all still retreat into the safety-zone of “we asked a question and you’re not answering.” I’ve gradually come to realize, and I’m not the only one, that when y’all say this what you’re really saying is that the script isn’t being followed.
And y’all aren’t asking the questions to learn anything. Certainly not to “clarify [my] position.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 04:09mkfreeberg: When people ask questions of me, I have the final say in what the answer is.
Good. You might try answering questions about your position sometimes. You might find it aids communication.
mkfreeberg: As y’all have repeatedly demonstrated, that is not how it works in y’all’s world — the question-asker is the one who decides how the conversation should go.
Typically, in a discussion, people ask each other questions, and answer each other’s questions.
By the way, you didn’t answer the question.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 04:32Good. You might try answering questions about your position sometimes. You might find it aids communication.
Let me know if y’all bump into someone who’s genuinely curious, and that may indeed turn out to be the case.
But people who ask questions, should be ready for answers. The process of asking an honest question involves, necessarily, some loss of control. That would be a good lesson for y’all, but before y’all can learn it, y’all will have to grok with the concept of curiosity.
And y’all certainly do ask a lot of questions for a collective of people who don’t have any.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 05:17mkfreeberg: Let me know if y’all bump into someone who’s genuinely curious, and that may indeed turn out to be the case.
We are curious, or we wouldn’t ask questions. However, you don’t seem to be willing to support or even clarify your views.
mkfreeberg: But people who ask questions, should be ready for answers.
http://d13s5ta1qg2cax.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/how-to-play-catcher-in-baseball.WidePlayer.jpg
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 05:28We are curious, or we wouldn’t ask questions.
Just because y’all are a curiosity, doesn’t make y’all curious. In point of fact, the lack of curiosity y’all have shown, even asking these questions, is legendary. I’m not the only one who thinks so.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 06:06mkfreeberg: In point of fact, the lack of curiosity y’all have shown, even asking these questions, is legendary.
We wouldn’t ask you to clarify your position if we weren’t curious. But you rarely bother to support or clarify your position.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 06:08We wouldn’t ask you to clarify your position if we weren’t curious.
Y’all have repeatedly demonstrated that this is not true.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 18:07mkfreeberg: Y’all have repeatedly demonstrated that this is not true.
We ask questions in order to understand your position more clearly. Are you willing to respond to questions in order to clarify your position?
- Zachriel | 06/18/2014 @ 05:35We ask questions in order to understand your position more clearly.
There is a very rudimentary point of logic y’all are missing here. Curious people tend to ask questions. It doesn’t necessarily follow that everyone asking questions is curious.
- mkfreeberg | 06/18/2014 @ 20:43mkfreeberg: Curious people tend to ask questions. It doesn’t necessarily follow that everyone asking questions is curious.
Possible. But we ask because we’re curious. If you won’t answer, but still find time to post thousands of words, it tends to suggest that you don’t have the answers, or are afraid of the implications of your own position.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 05:19But we ask because we’re curious.
When people are curious, as a general rule it is easy to tell them things.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 06:01mkfreeberg: When people are curious, as a general rule it is easy to tell them things.
Good. Are you willing to respond to questions in order to clarify your position?
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 06:09Are you willing to respond to questions in order to clarify your position?
And there’s that mantra y’all recite when y’all want to make it difficult to tell y’all anything. So that settles that.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 18:16mkfreeberg: And there’s that mantra y’all recite when y’all want to make it difficult to tell y’all anything.
Heh. You won’t even agree to answer questions about your own position.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 02:44You won’t even agree to answer questions about your own position.
It’s a reflection of y’all’s perceived level of genuine curiosity. And, perceived commitment to honest discussion. Or lack thereof. Evidently, when people conclude things about y’all that y’all don’t like, y’all’s response is to discredit what has been concluded, and those concluding it, rather than to look for opportunities to improve. I suppose this is something to be expected from anonymous people.
Curious people tend to ask questions. It doesn’t necessarily follow that everyone asking questions is curious.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 05:46Heh. You won’t even agree to answer questions about your own position.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 09:11Heh. You won’t even agree to answer questions about your own position.
Is there someone else who wants to know? Or who claims to want to know?
Curious people tend to ask questions. It doesn’t necessarily follow that everyone asking questions is curious. Y’all just don’t have the reputation of being curious, in these parts as well as elsewhere, in spite of the number of questions y’all ask.
It’s not just me noticing it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 16:57mkfreeberg: Is there someone else who wants to know?
Haven’t any idea. It doesn’t change that you won’t answers questions about your claims.
- Zachriel | 06/21/2014 @ 06:36Haven’t any idea. It doesn’t change that you won’t answers questions about your claims.
And that’s okay.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2014 @ 16:06mkfreeberg: And that’s okay.
Sure. It just devalues any claims you make when you can’t or won’t provide support.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 04:35Sure. It just devalues any claims you make when you can’t or won’t provide support.
So y’all said “It doesn’t matter what we say, but what we can show. Watch! ” — several posts and several days ago…and what. That’s it? That’s the delivery?
I watched, and y’all haven’t shown anything. Haven’t even identified a question I’m supposed to answer. What y’all have shown is that I’m not immediately agreeable to answering questions from The Zachriel, and if that is the criteria for determining who “can’t or won’t provide support,” well…
It falls under the Incredibles rule — if everybody qualifies, then nobody does.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 06:59mkfreeberg: I watched, and y’all haven’t shown anything. Haven’t even identified a question I’m supposed to answer.
Z: Can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
The latter question we asked ten times previous on this thread.
mkfreeberg: What y’all have shown is that I’m not immediately agreeable to answering questions from The Zachriel, and if that is the criteria for determining who “can’t or won’t provide support,” well…
You make claims. Then you take the time to respond with thousands of words over many weeks, but can’t bring yourself to answer simple questions about your position or even to provide support.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 09:05You make claims. Then you take the time to respond with thousands of words over many weeks, but can’t bring yourself to answer simple questions about your position or even to provide support.
And, evidently y’all don’t even remember what the claim was.
This would fit well with the observation that y’all don’t even seem to track the discussion, even when protesting that these questions y’all have supposedly been asking have supposedly gone unanswered.
This is why, I think, so many readers think y’all are nothing more than a Python script. I have to admit, evidence that y’all are anything but, comes forth only rarely. At any rate, it is necessary to ask specific questions about specific things, and note that they have gone answered, before using this particular argument tactic. Someone must have forgotten to tell y’all.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 10:03mkfreeberg: And, evidently y’all don’t even remember what the claim was.
Z: The political left is defined as advocating for greater equality.
mk: And whoever is defining it that way (notably, y’all don’t say) must be doing it wrong. They advocate for the opposite. Repeatedly. Stridently. Intractably. Ceaselessly.
Z: We’ve provided citations to dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly work, newspapers past and present, and political speakers from different periods. Can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
So, can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 15:46So, can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
The left supports inequality in all sorts of ways. Is this the locus of our disagreement?
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 20:06mkfreeberg: The left supports inequality in all sorts of ways.
Your claim is that the political left advocates for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. In fact, inequality is a typical characteristic of the political right, which tends to support traditional hierarchies.
You didn’t answer the question, again. So, can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your own definition?
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 05:13So, can you provide examples to support your claim?
You wish to see some example of the left supporting policies of inequality?
What is the claim y’all are making here? That I can’t find any? Or that y’all can “Zachriel away” the examples I do find?
It would be silly to say the left constantly champions equality. It doesn’t even make a lot of sense to say “inequality is a typical characteristic of the political right,” since no one believes that outside of a lefty echo chamber.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 06:09mkfreeberg: What is the claim y’all are making here?
Your claim that “the political left advocates for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly” is a gross overgeneralization.
So, can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your claim?
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 06:12The more general claim is that your use of the term political left-right and liberal-conservative are not consistent with normal usage, but are very recent polemic re-definitions. In support, we have we have provided multiple citations, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly resources, newspapers past and current, and politicians from various periods.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 06:18So, can you provide examples to support your claim? Are you willing to respond to examples we provide to test the limits of your claim?
There are many examples of liberals suddenly finding inequality not that big of a deal, when they themselves happen to be on the plusher side of the inequality-gap. Ayn Rand actually made fun of it in that scene where Francisco d’Anconia triggered a panic by insinuating there was an imminent meltdown in the investment vehicle being used by the hated and filthy rich; turned out, many of those “rich” were among the “looters.” This has come true in a number of ways.
Let’s see how y’all reach to just one example of a noted liberal merely tolerating the kind of material inequality, of which she and her husband are beneficiaries. If y’all can respond to that rationally, we may proceed to the other examples of liberals actually promoting policies that create and exacerbate inequality. There are many.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 06:49mkfreeberg: They advocate for the opposite. Repeatedly. Stridently. Intractably. Ceaselessly.
–
mkfreeberg: There are many examples of liberals suddenly finding inequality not that big of a deal
That’s not the claim under discussion.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 06:54That’s not the claim under discussion.
If y’all can respond to that rationally, we may proceed to the other examples of liberals actually promoting policies that create and exacerbate inequality. There are many.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 18:26mkfreeberg: If y’all can respond to that rationally …
We did. You claimed that those on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. When asked for an example, you provide one that doesn’t support your claim.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:02Zachriel: There are many.
Your claim is that it is a universal trait of the political left, so a single counterexample would suffice to contradict your claim. Dr. King was on the political left. Did he advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:03M: If y’all can respond to that rationally, we may proceed to the other examples of liberals actually promoting policies that create and exacerbate inequality. There are many.
Z: We did. You claimed that those on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. When asked for an example, you provide one that doesn’t support your claim.
Oh okay, y’all can’t then. The example provided was of Hillary going on record saying inequality was just fine, in the example that materially benefits her. Y’all found a way to rationalize that this “doesn’t support [my claim” when it is, in fact, an example of my claim.
Y’all can’t evaluate examples. Why do y’all repeatedly pretend that y’all can? Oh wait, I know…liberals think “winning arguments” is a good substitute for policies that actually help people. But don’t know what it looks like to actually win an argument.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:32mkfreeberg: The example provided was of Hillary going on record saying inequality was just fine, in the example that materially benefits her.
No. She went on record saying she wasn’t that unequal. In addition, your claim is that it isn’t a single statement, but the central advocacy. She clearly advocates for a more equal representation of women in positions of power, for instance. No, she doesn’t support your claim.
Your claim is that it is a universal trait of the political left, so a single counterexample would suffice to contradict your claim. Dr. King was on the political left. Did he advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:39She went on record saying she wasn’t that unequal.
A lot of people who “aren’t that unequal,” are hurt financially by progressive taxation policies, supported by Clintons & friends. The justification for which is that we have to close the income gap because liberals always have to have more and more and more equality. They’re never done chasing it, like a dog chasing a car.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 04:26You claimed that those on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. You still haven’t supported your claim, while a single counterexample would suffice to contradict your claim. Dr. King was on the political left. Did he advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly?
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 05:09You still haven’t supported your claim…
To be adjudicated by y’all, whose decision is to be final,
while a single counterexample would suffice to contradict your claim.
To be adjudicated by y’all, whose decision is to be final. Is this the level of advantage y’all must enjoy in order to make y’all’s ideas look salable? Anyway, as I said there are many other examples besides this one. But there is no point getting to those before we can make sure y’all have what it takes to objectively evaluate examples. Hillary Clinton crusaded, “tirelessly” as she is known to do, against inequality until she was shown to be the beneficiary of some inequality. At which point she got tired of crusading, tirelessly or otherwise.
It isn’t an isolated example.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 17:46mkfreeberg: Hillary Clinton crusaded, “tirelessly” as she is known to do, against inequality until she was shown to be the beneficiary of some inequality.
So Hillary Clinton is not an example of someone who has advocated for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. Per your own evaluation, she used to crusade against inequality.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 18:07So Hillary Clinton is not an example of someone who has advocated for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. Per your own evaluation, she used to crusade against inequality.
But — not when it comes to her.
What y’all seek to use y’all’s “Zachriel logic” to argue, is that there is no point and no need for a phrase like “limousine liberal.” And yet, the phrase exists, because the people it describes, exist. I could find lots of examples.
But there is no point to listing them, if y’all cannot evaluate examples, and what we’re illustrating here is that y’all probably can’t do this. Hillary Clinton is suddenly finding inequality tolerable, even desirable, in this situation in which she is at the prosperous end of it. Do y’all acknowledge the validity of this one example? Because if y’all don’t, that can only mean y’all can’t evaluate examples.
- mkfreeberg | 06/26/2014 @ 04:16mkfreeberg: But — not when it comes to her.
Your example doesn’t support your claim. Per your own evaluation, Hillary Clinton is not an example of someone who has advocated for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
mkfreeberg: What y’all seek to use y’all’s “Zachriel logic” to argue, is that there is no point and no need for a phrase like “limousine liberal.”
Sure, there are limousine liberals, but not all liberals are limousine liberals.
mkfreeberg: Hillary Clinton is suddenly finding inequality tolerable
Clinton has never advocated for perfect equality. She has advocated for women’s rights, a social safety net, and universal healthcare.
- Zachriel | 06/26/2014 @ 05:00Your example doesn’t support your claim.
Bollucks. My example is the claim. Hillary thinks it’s okay if she is wealthier than the average. She doesn’t think it’s okay for anyone else to be.
She is a tireless supporter of inequality, when it benefits her. There are other examples of this, but there is no point inspecting them before it’s shown that y’all are capable of evaluating examples. And it looks more and more like y’all can’t.
- mkfreeberg | 06/26/2014 @ 18:53mkfreeberg: She is a tireless supporter of inequality, when it benefits her.
So you were wrong, as per your own evaluation, Clinton does not advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
In addition, Romney also supports his own inequality, so he must be on the political left too. Indeed, nearly everyone tries to protect or increase their own assets, so nearly everyone is on the political left. You do realize this makes no sense whatsoever.
- Zachriel | 06/27/2014 @ 02:59Y’all said my example does not support the claim, when my example is the claim. Now y’all summarize it as “So you were wrong, as per your own evaluation.”
Y’all simply cannot evaluate examples. Until y’all learn how, there’s no point exploring all the others.
- mkfreeberg | 06/27/2014 @ 05:45mkfreeberg: my example is the claim.
Your claim is that people on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
You provided one example that contradicts your claim. We also provided an example, Dr. King, which contradicts your claim. As it only takes one exception to disprove your universal claim, your claim is false.
- Zachriel | 06/27/2014 @ 09:46You provided one example that contradicts your claim. We also provided an example,
But we can tell, from y’all’s treatment of my example, y’all are not in a position to evaluate because y’all already know what the evaluation is supposed to find before y’all start working on it. In this case, the evaluation is “Hillary does not crusade for inequality even as she crusades for inequality.” It is obvious from her comments that she feels she & Bill are more entitled to wealth than some others, although she specifically avoids saying who those others are.
It’s silly to say the example does not support the claim, when the example is the claim. It shows that y’all cannot really evaluate examples, which means y’all can’t provide them either.
- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2014 @ 03:20This is your claim: People on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
You provided Hillary Clinton as an example. She recently said that equality for women “remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century”. She also said,
So at least some of the time Clinton advocates for greater equality, so she is not ceaseless in her advocacy of inequality. Your example does not support your claim.
Furthermore, it only takes one counterexample to disprove your claim, which you yourself provided. We also provided an example, Dr. King.
- Zachriel | 06/28/2014 @ 05:55She recently said that equality for women “remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century”. She also said…
Yes, we pinpointed y’all’s error quite some time ago. When a democrat is speaking, y’all consistently confuse the things they say, with the things they do.
Is Hillary going to give away her excess wealth to poor people, to make things more equal?
- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2014 @ 08:17mkfreeberg: When a democrat is speaking, y’all consistently confuse the things they say, with the things they do.
But your claim concerned advocacy. Here’s your claim again: People on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
That is a false statement.
- Zachriel | 06/28/2014 @ 08:48That is a false statement.
But hand waving is not an argument. Y’all have not shown this to be a false statement.
What y’all have shown, is that y’all cannot evaluate examples. If y’all can acknowledge that Hillary clearly doesn’t have a problem with inequality when she & her friends are on the plush side of an inequality barrier, then we can proceed to leftists advocating for inequality.
Throughout the lesson, we will have to keep in mind that things leftists say ≠ things leftists support. This is necessary, since it is an ideology based on deceit. It relies on a common bond forged between those who know of the harm the policies do, and would not support the policies if they gave a rip; and, those who care about others, and would not support the harmful policies if they knew what the policies did, but don’t know and do little to learn. So, key to our understanding of this, is going to be our observation that when leftist policies are proven to harm the people they’re supposed to help, the passionate lefties do not deviate from course, as informed, AND caring, people most certainly would.
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 06:26mkfreeberg: If y’all can acknowledge that Hillary clearly doesn’t have a problem with inequality when she & her friends are on the plush side of an inequality barrier, then we can proceed to leftists advocating for inequality.
Your claim is that people on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. To disprove this universal statement, one only has to show a single counterexample. We provided a counterexample of Clinton advocating for women’s equality, hence the claim is disproven.
mkfreeberg: Throughout the lesson, we will have to keep in mind that things leftists say ≠ things leftists support.
You claim concerns advocacy, the public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy. We provided an example of Clinton’s public support for women’s equality.
Notably, you still didn’t address our argument. That requires referencing the specifics, not just repeatedly saying “Is not”.
- Zachriel | 06/29/2014 @ 06:32We provided an example of Clinton’s public support for women’s equality. Notably, you still didn’t address our argument.
That claim is false.
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 06:38Zachriel: We provided an example of Clinton’s public support for women’s equality. Notably, you still didn’t address our argument.
mkfreeberg: That claim is false
Clinton recently said that equality for women “remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century”. She also said,
- Zachriel | 06/29/2014 @ 07:00Clinton recently said that…
Again, y’all refute the claim with a lefty’s rhetoric.
What y’all have actually managed to prove is that y’all have a rather stunning lack of curiosity about the effect of lefty policies, while simultaneously, y’all seem to have made it a “hill we wanna die on” that leftists are all about equality. I would have stirred up the hornet’s nest equally effectively, no doubt, had I merely said “Here’s some inequality The Left forgot to address” or “The Left’s reputation as tireless champions of equality is exaggerated.” It’s like y’all are paid on commission for selling the propaganda.
But yeah, The Left does advocate for inequality without fail. If Barack Obama is in conflict with someone, as far as they’re concerned, Obama is supposed to win. Period. Because if you disagree with the President you must be a racist. If Hillary is in conflict with someone, Hillary is supposed to win. Period. They’re anointed. They’re aristocrats. In fact, when they were in conflict with each other, the leftists spent all summer long not knowing what to do about it. It was simultaneously funny and painful to watch. Especially since there was never much definition about any policy disagreements between the two; it was all about who should be the always-right never-wrong invincible champion of the cause. The premiere aristocrat. The sovereign.
Leftist regimes are remarkably consistent in naming such a sovereign, and then promoting the idea that that guy is above everybody else. Of course, his appointees, while well beneath him, are well above the hoi polloi.
An ideology, or a party, interested in real equality, would be about advancing ideas and not about advancing figureheads or layers of aristocracy. Thus far, all of y’all’s opposition to this observation — that’s what it is, a resistance against people noticing things — relies entirely on the rhetoric of known liars, which means it relies on nothing. Y’all’s rebuttal fails.
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 07:36mkfreeberg: If Barack Obama is in conflict with someone, as far as they’re concerned, Obama is supposed to win.
That’s not our position, nor does that address your original claim that people on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
mkfreeberg: Again, y’all refute the claim with a lefty’s rhetoric.
As your claim concerned advocacy, the public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy, that would be the correct.
mkfreeberg: I would have stirred up the hornet’s nest equally effectively, no doubt, had I merely said “Here’s some inequality The Left forgot to address” or “The Left’s reputation as tireless champions of equality is exaggerated.”
Those might have been defensible claims. Did you want to abandon your original claim then?
- Zachriel | 06/29/2014 @ 09:01That’s not our position, nor does that address your original claim that people on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
It most certainly does. “People on the political left” want Barack Obama to win, and they slander anybody in opposition to Him. Repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly. Ruthlessly, in fact.
- mkfreeberg | 07/01/2014 @ 04:57mkfreeberg: It most certainly does. “People on the political left” want Barack Obama to win, and they slander anybody in opposition to Him.
No, people on the political left do not all want Obama to win.
Not all people on the left use slander.
Nor is slander the same as advocating for inequality. It’s a tactic, not a political position.
Did you change your claim?
- Zachriel | 07/01/2014 @ 09:46Did you change your claim?
No, I think what just happened is y’all used what y’all call “hand waving” to deny it. Right?
- mkfreeberg | 07/02/2014 @ 05:00mkfreeberg: No, I think what just happened is y’all used what y’all call “hand waving” to deny it. Right?
No, we provided specific objections to your response.
Your original claim: people on the political left advocate for inequality, repeatedly, stridently, intractably, ceaselessly.
Your supposed support: People on the political left” want Barack Obama to win, and they slander anybody in opposition to Him.
There are several objections. First, it overgeneralizes about the political left. Not everyone on the political left supports Obama, and not everyone on the political left uses slander. More important, your response does not support your original claim as it confuses a political position with a political tactic. This led us to ask if you had changed your claim.
- Zachriel | 07/02/2014 @ 05:37Not everyone on the political left supports Obama, and not everyone on the political left uses slander.
I see. So y’all seek to prop up an image of the political left as a complex patchwork of loosely associated, independent-thinking ideologies, which do not uniformly push for Obama to win at everything.
Guess y’all haven’t been following the social-media campaign against Hobby Lobby. What an odd time to try to make such a case.
No, there are many examples of The Left immediately leaping to accusations of bigotry when confronted with someone who merely resists the daily wishes of Emperor Obama. But — it has not been established that y’all can evaluate examples, since I provided one of Hillary Clinton being just fine with inequality so long as she benefits from it, and y’all refuse to see it. The question here is whether y’all can be shown things. If y’all can’t, there’s no point providing examples to y’all.
- mkfreeberg | 07/03/2014 @ 06:39mkfreeberg: So y’all seek to prop up an image of the political left as a complex patchwork of loosely associated, independent-thinking ideologies, which do not uniformly push for Obama to win at everything.
Of course. There are many views on the political left, including left-anarchism. They are unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality, but this desire is often balanced against many other competing values.
mkfreeberg: I provided one of Hillary Clinton being just fine with inequality so long as she benefits from it
That wasn’t your claim. You overgeneralized, then refused to admit the error.
- Zachriel | 07/03/2014 @ 10:28They [The Left] are unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality, but this desire is often balanced against many other competing values.
They don’t want Obama to be equal. That’s obvious.
Do y’all agree that y’all’s definition of “left” fails here?
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 06:07mkfreeberg: They don’t want Obama to be equal. That’s obvious.
Huh? Some people wanted Obama to be president. Obviously.
mkfreeberg: Do y’all agree that y’all’s definition of “left” fails here?
That’s your black-and-white thinking acting up again. Being on the left doesn’t necessarily mean advocating perfect equality. It’s a continuum of beliefs, and there are very few who advocate a perfectly non-hierarchical society. It’s basically a bell curve, with most people in the middle, middle-left, or middle-right, and only a few on the extremes.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 06:54It’s a continuum of beliefs,…
Didn’t read anything after this.
It’s false.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 14:57mkfreeberg: It’s false.
Heh. Simply wave your hands, and the problem goes away.
There are various views on the political left, just as there are on the political right. Not everyone on the political left supports perfect equality. For instance, John Kennedy was a liberal, supported a social safety net, but still supported a meritocracy.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 15:15Simply wave your hands, and the problem goes away.
Uh, no. I stated that a falsehood, is, indeed, a falsehood.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 16:11mkfreeberg: I stated that a falsehood, is, indeed, a falsehood.
That would be a tautology. What you had said was that “It’s a continuum of beliefs” is false, an entirely different claim, and one that you haven’t supported, but instead ignore the arguments we have raised.
For instance, John Kennedy was a liberal, supported a social safety net, but still supported a meritocracy.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 18:23That would be a tautology. What you had said was that “It’s a continuum of beliefs” is false, an entirely different claim, and one that you haven’t supported, but instead ignore the arguments we have raised.
Y’all’s claim is that liberalism is a continuum of beliefs, but that they “are unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality…”
They don’t want Obama to be equal. That’s obvious.
- mkfreeberg | 07/05/2014 @ 13:14mkfreeberg: Y’all’s claim is that liberalism is a continuum of beliefs
Actually, the claim concerns the political left and the political right. Liberals are generally on the political left, but not everyone on the political left is a liberal. It’s hard to comprehend that you are still confused on our position.
mkfreeberg: “are unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality…”
People on the political left are for greater social equality.
mkfreeberg: They don’t want Obama to be equal.
Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal.
Most people on the political left support some form of democracy, meaning some people will be elevated by popular suffrage to political position. John Kennedy was on the political left, supported a social safety net, but also supported a meritocracy.
- Zachriel | 07/05/2014 @ 18:17There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality.
No, actually, we’ve seen time after time that when there is a disagreement between “left” and “right” about whether Obama should be equal, the leftist position is that He should not be equal. This observation falsifies the claim that the Left is “unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality…”
It’s possible to take issue with this observation, but only by ignoring it in some way.
- mkfreeberg | 07/06/2014 @ 05:44mkfreeberg: This observation falsifies the claim that the Left is “unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality…”
Your response is incoherent. Try reading our position again. Pay particular attention to the example and try to analyze it using your concept of equality.
Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal.
- Zachriel | 07/06/2014 @ 06:54Try reading our position again. Pay particular attention to…
I notice this about y’all. There’s an impulsive leap to the conclusion that others don’t agree with what y’all say, because others must not understand something. So y’all re-explain and re-re-explain…
These conversations would be much shorter, obviously, if y’all were accurately figuring out why there’s disagreement. So this might be a good time for y’all to entertain doubt, uncertainty, curiosity, as first steps toward self-correction.
Frankly, the re-explaining and re-re-explaining doesn’t come off looking like superior knowledge. It comes off looking like glaring personal deficits in the above-named qualities, and a raging group-infection case of CBTA disease.
- mkfreeberg | 07/07/2014 @ 19:25mkfreeberg: There’s an impulsive leap to the conclusion that others don’t agree with what y’all say, because others must not understand something.
It’s rather clear that either you don’t understand our position, or that you refuse to acknowledge our position. We generously assume the former. Now, please try to address our position paying particular attention to the example.
Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal.
- Zachriel | 07/08/2014 @ 03:08It’s rather clear that either you don’t understand our position, or that you refuse to acknowledge our position. We generously assume the former.
No, what y’all said was this:
These two sentences say all that need to be said.
Y’all don’t understand what the other person said…so…insanely, y’all leap to the conclusion that it is the other person whose understanding has fallen short.
This is why y’all never learn anything. Y’all’s reiterations of this exercise are nothing if not repetitive, so by repeating the exercise of convincing y’all’selves it’s always the other side that has to learn something — y’all never learn anything.
So why should the rest of us place value on the opinions of anonymous individuals who never learn anything?
- mkfreeberg | 07/08/2014 @ 06:46mkfreeberg: Y’all don’t understand what the other person said
You still neglected to respond.
Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal.
Do you agree that the U.S. was a more equal society than being a colony of the British Empire? Do you agree that the U.S. was not a perfectly equal society in the aftermath of the American Revolution? If so, then it follows that equality is not an either-or condition, but can be more equal or less equal depending on the situation. So let’s return to your supposed falsification.
mkfreeberg: No, actually, we’ve seen time after time that when there is a disagreement between “left” and “right” about whether Obama should be equal, the leftist position is that He should not be equal. This observation falsifies the claim that the Left is “unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality…”
Elevating George Washington to president, resulted in a more equal society than having a king; therefore, it doesn’t follow that wanting to elevate Obama to the presidency necessarily means they don’t want greater equality if they see Obama as an instrument of greater equality (whether a well-founded belief or not).
- Zachriel | 07/08/2014 @ 11:41You still neglected to respond.
We’re not there yet. Right now we’re inspecting y’all’s dishonest way of having these discussions:
Y’all claim not to have understood what the other person said, which presents a problem. And y’all’s solution to that problem, is to re-explain things to the other person — the exact opposite of what the supposed problem, in a universe of logic and reason, would require as a solution.
It comes off looking, not like a way to flesh out finer details and expose truth, but rather like a way to preen and take satisfaction in knowing more than the opposition, even in the moment of professing ignorance.
- mkfreeberg | 07/09/2014 @ 05:30mkfreeberg: Y’all claim not to have understood what the other person said, which presents a problem.
And we responded to your claim as best we could. It’s up to you to clarify your meaning. Here is the exchange:
We posted this:
Zachriel: Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal.
You responded:
Zachriel: There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality.
mkfreeberg: No, actually, we’ve seen time after time that when there is a disagreement between “left” and “right” about whether Obama should be equal, the leftist position is that He should not be equal. This observation falsifies the claim that the Left is “unified, definitionally, by the desire for greater social equality…”
You say “No”, meaning you disagree with the statement you quoted, but ignore the support for the statement, including the example. Furthermore, nothing past the “No” supports the “No”. That’s why your response is incoherent.
So try to address the argument. Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal.
- Zachriel | 07/09/2014 @ 09:18And we responded to your claim as best we could. It’s up to you to clarify your meaning.
Let me know when someone with an actual name has trouble understanding.
Y’all think when A lacks the ability to understand what B said, the solution is for A to re-explain to B.
This seems like the credo of those who aren’t concerned about making life better for anyone or solving any real problems, and just like to do a lot of talking.
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 06:05mkfreeberg: Y’all think when A lacks the ability to understand what B said, the solution is for A to re-explain to B.
The most reasonable response is to try and restate the position, and ask for clarification, which we have done. Let’s try again.
Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal. If you disagree, then please address the example provided.
- Zachriel | 07/10/2014 @ 06:22The most reasonable response is …
The most reasonable way to discuss things, would be to not rely on scripting for the other side, and then throwing a hissy fit when the other side deviates from y’all’s script.
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 06:24You made a claim in the original post which we found to be unfounded as it was based on a misunderstanding of basic terminology. So to return to the discussion:
Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. Do you agree that the American Revolution created a more equal society? Do you agree that a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal?
- Zachriel | 07/10/2014 @ 12:54Equality is not a simple dichotomous condition. There can be greater equality, but less than perfect equality. Do you agree that the American Revolution created a more equal society? Do you agree that a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal?
It’s odd that y’all continually demand consent to the assertions that are least likely to cause controversy, while simultaneously tolerating no challenge whatsoever to those assertions that are, at best, debatable. Think maybe y’all would do well to start having discussions about what “the discussion” is.
Yes. Equality is a simple dichotomous condition. That’s true in mathematics, in physics, and even in politics — until such time as a measurable and meaningful quorum of liberals could be found who’d be willing to say, “Yeah, the equality I have in mind, get things to such-and-such a point and that’ll be good enough for me. I’d stop there.”
But of course, any meaningful quorum of liberals, if they agree on anything at all, will only agree that more revolution needs to happen today so that the glory of tomorrow can be reached. Always one revolution away from complete bliss.
Yeah yeah, I know, notably I didn’t answer the question. Y’all asked the wrong question. Again.
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 13:00mkfreeberg: It’s odd that y’all continually demand consent to the assertions that are least likely to cause controversy, while simultaneously tolerating no challenge whatsoever to those assertions that are, at best, debatable.
We welcome a challenge. Generally, you simply try to ignore the question.
mkfreeberg: Yes. Equality is a simple dichotomous condition. That’s true in mathematics
Except when it’s not.
“The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example levels of income).”
- Zachriel | 07/10/2014 @ 13:05http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Now, try to answer this question. Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society? Do you think the question is incoherent?
- Zachriel | 07/10/2014 @ 13:06Except when it’s not.
Yes, odd that y’all would be arguing about Gini coefficient down to the n’th position past the decimal, over there, and over here y’all are insisting that equality-versus-inequality is “not a simple dichotomous condition.”
Primary takeaway:
Y’all’s ideas might look good when, and ONLY when, y’all can assume autocratic control over whether, and when, and how, details matter.
Secondary takeaway:
The Zachriel do not actually “discuss.” What they call a “discussion” is actually the recitation of a script, and they get all twisted & bent out of shape if the other side does not follow the script they’ve got planned. Essentially, they confuse a monologue with a dialogue, and vice-versa. In continuing to act this out, they show the mentality of those who suffer from CBTA (Can’t Be Told Anything) disease; those who go through the motions of learning much, while actually learning nothing. And why & how those people consistently end up being what we today call “liberals.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 19:04mkfreeberg: odd that y’all would be arguing about Gini coefficient down to the n’th position past the decimal
Quite the contrary. We didn’t provide any specific quantification. You brought up mathematics and equality, and we provided a mathematical definition of equality that isn’t a simple dichotomy.
Try real hard now to concentrate. Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 05:01Try real hard now to concentrate.
That’s another thing that has to go into Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung: The problem is always with the other side failing to understand something, or failing to “concentrate” (complete some elementary exercise).
Through it all, y’all put on this play-act of being patient, wondering what it takes to finally have the exchange y’all want to have. It doesn’t end up being convincing, because out here among the bipeds, when we try repeatedly at something and are continually frustrated with failure, we change our tactics. Ironically, being a “progressive” is supposed to be all about that. What y’all have demonstrated instead, is the exercise of consistent behavior with the expectation of inconsistent results. There’s a word for that…
- mkfreeberg | 07/11/2014 @ 05:51Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 05:53Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
Of course.
- mkfreeberg | 07/12/2014 @ 06:30Zachriel (for the dozenth time): Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
mkfreeberg: Of course.
Thank you. Do you think the American Revolution created a perfectly equal society?
- Zachriel | 07/12/2014 @ 06:51Do you think the American Revolution created a perfectly equal society?
What I think, is that y’all once saw someone win an argument by way of the “You haven’t answered my question” tactic, and now y’all are engaging cargo-cult thinking to try to win arguments that way, without understanding how it’s supposed to work.
In fact, now it’s revealed that y’all aren’t actually trying to discuss anything this way, since I answered y’all’s question and y’all have another question. And I’m very sure that off in another thread, or later on in this one, y’all are going to build another cargo-cult hay-plane yet again, complaining “you never answered any of our questions.”
How about just proceed to the point y’all are trying to make, and state it. Stem to stern. If it can’t be made to look good by doing that, it’s probably not a point worth making.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 09:23mkfreeberg: What I think, is that y’all once saw someone win an argument by way of the “You haven’t answered my question” tactic, and now y’all are engaging cargo-cult thinking to try to win arguments that way, without understanding how it’s supposed to work.
Not sure why you find it so difficult to answer simple questions. We can only suppose it’s because you know that your own answers will undermine your stated position, and for some reason can’t retreat from your position.
You answered the one question, and while refusing to answer the second, the answer is obvious. American society was more equal after the American Revolution, but was not perfectly equal. Hence, social equality is not a simple binary condition.
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 10:24ot sure why you find it so difficult to answer simple questions.
And…there, y’all just did it.
The issue is not my difficulty answering questions. This is demonstrated easily, since I just answered one — and obviously, this does not count for anything. The issue is that y’all ask these questions and y’all don’t have any intention to learn anything from the answers.
Not sure I can help y’all with this.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 17:34mkfreeberg: This is demonstrated easily, since I just answered one — and obviously, this does not count for anything.
Of course it counts. You said that Americans society was more equal after the American Revolution than before, so apparently equality can, depending on context, be something other than a binary condition.
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 18:38You said that Americans society was more equal after the American Revolution than before, so apparently equality can, depending on context, be something other than a binary condition.
But it can’t. Look around. Our liberals, after the American revolution, are unhappy. Because they’re inequality.
What y’all have revealed is that liberalism doesn’t work. And y’all see that as a problem belonging to those who oppose liberalism, which shows that liberalism is incompatible with learning new things, as well.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 01:49mkfreeberg: But it can’t.
You didn’t address the point that there is more than one possible state for social equality. Was American society more equal after the slaves were freed?
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 05:39You didn’t address the point that there is more than one possible state for social equality. Was American society more equal after the slaves were freed?
I addressed this in the other thread. The use of the term “equality” essentially manufactures the logical contradiction, since it is a misnomer.
This is what is required to make liberal ideas look like good ones.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 09:18mkfreeberg: I addressed this in the other thread.misnomer.
So you retract your statement that American society was more equal after the American Revolution?
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 10:56So you retract your statement that American society was more equal after the American Revolution?
Y’all sure do leap to that conclusion a lot. It’s never been correct, to the best I can recall.
No, I don’t. I addressed this in the other thread.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 12:52mkfreeberg: It’s never been correct, to the best I can recall.
Z: Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
mk: Of course.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 13:11Z: Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
mk: Of course.
Right, I followed through on the technically inaccurate colloquialism.
In so doing, I proved that this whole bit about “You never answered our question” never was anything more than a facial-tic of arguing.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 17:32mkfreeberg: Right, I followed through on the technically inaccurate colloquialism.
We’d be happy to provide additional examples of how the phrase is used, if you like. In any case, now that we have established the meaning of the term; people on the political left advocate for greater equality, but not necessarily for perfect equality.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 18:37We’d be happy to provide additional examples of how the phrase is used, if you like.
Again (we’ve been her before, a few times): Y’all explaining things, doesn’t do anything to address the problem of y’all failing to understand something.
There are two variables. Two possibilities exist with regard to those variables’ relationship with each other: 1) they are equal; 2) they are not equal. Period.
If it becomes desirable to measure how close the quantities are to each other, or how tightly clustered the measurements are among a greater number of such variables, there are other terminologies used to describe that. “Equal” is included in those, but only colloquially. It technically is not accurate, since things are equal or else they are not.
This is the part where y’all admit y’all didn’t use the term correctly…although, that is not to say that’s what is going to happen…
- mkfreeberg | 07/21/2014 @ 18:06mkfreeberg: There are two variables. Two possibilities exist with regard to those variables’ relationship with each other: 1) they are equal; 2) they are not equal. Period.
When someone says that the political left advocates for greater equality, no one is confused but yourself. You spent days using the standard usage. When pressed, you resort to semantics. Weak.
Zachriel: The political left is defined as advocating for {a more even distribution of social benefits, which may include political or economic benefits.}
mkfreeberg: And whoever is defining it that way (notably, y’all don’t say) must be doing it wrong. They advocate for the opposite. Repeatedly. Stridently. Intractably. Ceaselessly.
Our response is the same, which is to provided counterexamples, such as Dr. King, JFK, Clinton.
- Zachriel | 07/22/2014 @ 05:10You spent days using the standard usage. When pressed, you resort to semantics. Weak.
The “standard usage” of “equality” is this: If two things are equal, the condition is met, and if they aren’t then it isn’t.
Semantics are actually important. If we deviate from them, liberalism sounds like a noble cause — but only if we deviate from them: “We are advocating for a more equal society.” If we stick to them, liberalism loses its luster as it is described more accurately: “We are agitating for a change so that ultimately, everyone has the same amount regardless of their level of work ethic.”
When things no longer look appealing when they’re described more accurately, the logical thing to do is to investigate & inspect; find out why. The illogical thing to do would be to discard the more accurate definition and stick to the inaccurate one.
M: And whoever is defining it that way (notably, y’all don’t say) must be doing it wrong. They advocate for the opposite. Repeatedly. Stridently. Intractably. Ceaselessly.
Z: Our response is the same, which is to provided counterexamples, such as Dr. King, JFK, Clinton.
Like Hillary Clinton, y’all mean? The one who suddenly is just fine with inequality as long as she’s the one who has more?
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2014 @ 05:10mkfreeberg: “We are advocating for a more equal society.”
…
“We are agitating for a change so that ultimately, everyone has the same amount regardless of their level of work ethic.”
Those are not the same. The former means to a more even distribution, which may refer to political power or to economic benefits; the latter means an exactly equal distribution of “amount”, which is presumably economic benefits.
mkfreeberg: The one who suddenly is just fine with inequality as long as she’s the one who has more?
The Clintons have never advocated for perfect equality.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2014 @ 05:30The former means to a more even distribution, which may refer to political power or to economic benefits; the latter means an exactly equal distribution of “amount”, which is presumably economic benefits.
Right. The thing y’all want to call “equality” is not equality.
We know liberals seek to deceive, because they’re so emphatic about wanting this “more equal society” and so much in agreement about it — but don’t make an issue out of how much of an “even distribution” they want. Revolutionaries suck at defining things. That’s because the revolution is actually the goal; something needs changing.
If they knew how to actually fix something, they wouldn’t have to have a revolution. The original revolutionaries of the American Revolution, in fact, tried repeatedly to do exactly that. This is one of many reasons why today’s liberals can’t claim to be continuing their cause. It isn’t even close to the same thing.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2014 @ 16:00mkfreeberg: We know liberals seek to deceive, because they’re so emphatic about wanting this “more equal society” and so much in agreement about it
We have provided examples of liberals who have not advocated for perfect equality. It’s easy to win an argument by simply changing the meanings of words, including King, Kennedy, and Clinton.
mkfreeberg: That’s because the revolution is actually the goal; something needs changing.
Very few liberals advocate revolution. Redefining words is not an argument, but just a way to deceive yourself.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2014 @ 16:37Very few liberals advocate revolution.
A lot of revolutionaries didn’t think they were advocating revolution, preferring to delude themselves further by hiding behind words like “change.” But you don’t need to listen to them too long, to see that the imminent event is what holds the appeal for them. We know they’re psychologically damaged because we see them longing for this imminent event with just as much lust, right after they’ve gotten everything they want.
But anyway, we shouldn’t pretend “equality” has something to do with it. It would be more accurate to say the goal is “artificial influences justified by the unevenness of distribution” — not of “income” but of material wealth. Let’s not pretend our friends the liberals would be appeased if the Koch Brothers were allowed to keep all their stuff, with their incomes reduced to zero.
— only, however, up to the point where the aggrieved liberal experiences a rise in his own material wealth due to this artificial influence. And only to the detriment of those who are undesirable. Let’s not pretend our friends the liberals would be appeased if Michael Moore and Warren Buffett had to share a tiny apartment, like the Odd Couple.
- mkfreeberg | 07/26/2014 @ 06:27mkfreeberg: A lot of revolutionaries didn’t think they were advocating revolution, preferring to delude themselves further by hiding behind words like “change.”
Sure, if you make up stuff, then you can convince yourself of anything.
- Zachriel | 07/26/2014 @ 06:46Sure, if you make up stuff, then you can convince yourself of anything.
Y’all tell me, y’all are the ones trying to re-define the word “equal.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/26/2014 @ 12:59mkfreeberg: Y’all tell me, y’all are the ones trying to re-define the word “equal.”
We’re using it in the same sense as Milton Friedman.
- Zachriel | 07/26/2014 @ 13:51We’re using it in the same sense as Milton Friedman.
Oh, well then it must be right, let’s turn all of logic on its head to accommodate. True or false:
2 == 3.
?
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 06:13mkfreeberg: 2 == 3
2 does not equal 3, however, 2 is closer to equality with 3 than is 97.
Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 06:222 does not equal 3, however, 2 is closer to equality with 3 than is 97.
So in y’all’s world, “equal” doesn’t mean equal.
Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
This is why people think y’all are a Ruby script. I’ve answered that question already. Y’all have revealed, yet again, that the “You haven’t answered our question” is not even a debating tactic, it’s more of a facial tic.
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 07:09mkfreeberg: So in y’all’s world, “equal” doesn’t mean equal.
That’s not what we said. We used the term “closer to equality”.
Zachriel: Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
mk: blah, blah.
You forgot to provide an answer. Do you think the question is incoherent?
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 07:14mkfreeberg: I’ve answered that question already.
You said “Of course”, but then you have been arguing that the question is incoherent. This is why the discussion never progresses. You rarely give straight answers, then when you do, you retreat from them as if you didn’t.
Let’s try a similar example, “more perfect”. Something is either perfect or it is not. Therefore “more perfect” is incoherent, is that correct?
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 07:18You said “Of course”, but then you have been arguing that the question is incoherent.
Just did a text search on the word “incoherent,” and it only appears within what I said one time — when I was quoting y’all. So, I’m not sure what y’all mean by that.
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 10:36mkfreeberg: Just did a text search on the word “incoherent,” and it only appears within what I said one time — when I was quoting y’all.
So? Just because you didn’t use the term doesn’t mean that it isn’t under discussion.
You are claiming that a statement such as “The American Revolution resulted in greater equality” is incoherent because equality is a strict dichotomy. The problem with your position is a misunderstanding of standard idiomatic English where greater equality means closer to equality.
Let’s try a similar example, “more perfect”. Something is either perfect or it is not. Therefore “more perfect” is incoherent, is that correct?
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 11:01So? Just because you didn’t use the term doesn’t mean that it isn’t under discussion.
Actually, as far back as I can recall nobody has even made an issue out of “coherence” except y’all. Reasonable people live in a universe that seems to be rather foreign to y’all; over here, if a thing is true, but it’s hard to recognize that it’s true and lots of people find it to be difficult to discern, or “incoherent” — it remains true.
Y’all must come from some other one, in which true things become false if enough people complain of difficulty recognizing that it’s so.
- mkfreeberg | 07/29/2014 @ 06:36mkfreeberg: Actually, as far back as I can recall nobody has even made an issue out of “coherence” except y’all.
So you are saying that the question “Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?” is logically coherent, that the terms are reasonably well-described in order to provide a consistent answer.
- Zachriel | 07/29/2014 @ 07:24So you are saying that the question “Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?” is logically coherent, that the terms are reasonably well-described in order to provide a consistent answer.
After the revolution, we had, literally, “more” equality. A very wealthy American from a very wealthy family, appearing before a judge for the crime of vandalism, jaywalking, speeding, or any one of a number of other offenses, can expect to be treated the same as someone from a lower class, and less impressive family history, facing the same charges. That is equality. It does not necessarily apply in this way to England, or any province of Great Britain, or her colonies.
It seems y’all are so concerned with this curvilinear plotting of relative income & wealth, that y’all can’t absorb arguments from the opposition about “equality” that might have something to do with something else. Which is interesting since y’all don’t seem to be distinguishing between income comparison & wealth comparison. I would have thought, if a metric was worth such an obsession, it would have been worthy of a better job of defining. What exactly are y’all comparing when y’all talk about “equality”? Do y’all even know?
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2014 @ 07:12mkfreeberg: After the revolution, we had, literally, “more” equality.
No need for the scare-quotes, because the term is part of the vernacular. But if it makes you feel better. In order to from a “more” perfect Union … We’ll be sure the National Archives makes the change.
mkfreeberg: A very wealthy American from a very wealthy family, appearing before a judge for the crime of vandalism, jaywalking, speeding, or any one of a number of other offenses, can expect to be treated the same as someone from a lower class, and less impressive family history, facing the same charges.
Unless you were black or red or a woman. Nor could the poor vote, so that is hardly equality under the law. But you’re right on the larger point. It was generally “more” equal after the American Revolution. At the very least, it meant the end of the privileges of a hereditary nobility.
So, to return to the case in point, the Founders show that it is quite possible to advocate for “greater” equality without advocating for “perfect equality”.
- Zachriel | 08/03/2014 @ 08:57No need for the scare-quotes, because the term is part of the vernacular. But if it makes you feel better…
It isn’t a matter of making me feel better, it’s fact. If two things are not equal, they are not equal.
I’m right about that, right?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2014 @ 06:20mkfreeberg: It isn’t a matter of making me feel better, it’s fact. If two things are not equal, they are not equal.
Income inequality refers to the statistical distribution of incomes. It can be explicitly defined as a Gini coefficient of dispersion. “Math is hard.”
- Zachriel | 08/27/2014 @ 07:52Income inequality refers to the statistical distribution of incomes.
And, equality refers to things being, ya know, equal.
“Math is hard.”
Equality refers to things being, ya know, equal.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2014 @ 09:01mkfreeberg: And, equality refers to things being, ya know, equal.
The term “income inequality” refers to the statistical distribution of incomes, such as represented by the Gini coefficient.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2014 @ 09:24http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gini_coefficient.html
The term “income inequality” refers to the statistical distribution of incomes, such as represented by the Gini coefficient.
“Equality,” however, refers to strict equality, so it is inaccurate for liberals to describe their goal as one of “greater equality.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2014 @ 23:27