Mum and children told to leave playgroup because they were not 'multicultural' .

by Syl Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:40 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/family-relationships/mum-told-to-leave-playgroup-for-not-being-multicultural/ar-BBzdVdQ?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp#image=1

This happened in Australia. I put it in 'weird news' because its so..... weird.
Anyone being barred from taking their children to play in a playgroup because they are not multicultural enough is as discriminating as barring someone because they are foreign born surely.

"According to Ms Coverdale, after explaining to one of the centre’s staff that she was a fourth-generation Australian, the staff member replied: “I’m sorry, you can’t come here. It’s for multicultural families and people who speak languages other than English at home.”

by Original Quill Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't know. The article doesn't go into it that deeply, to decipher what philosophy they are trying to achieve.

Separatism has been used before to achieve socially acceptable ends. For example, black separatists in the 60's and 70's argued that separating black children out from whites helped them grow up independent of surrounding power and privilege, allowing them to nurture a sense of self-worth and high self-esteem. It gets rid of the negativism that results from a dominate majority race that looks down on them.

Curious...we never felt the need to ask that question when privileged white families sent their children to prestigious and exclusive private schools. It was understood what was the meaning of white separatism. The 'tainted' children were kept away, and that was that.

That may be so... in a different place and different time...

Here we have lefties who are supposedly pro 'equality/diversity/multiculturalism' etc and anti 'discrimination/racism' etc...

Who think it is right to go against all these core beliefs of theirs, when it is against whites who speak English...!

Tommy, that is the perspective you get when you don't understand proportional equality. You keep holding to a theory of distributive equality, where the presumption is that all people start the race equally. Where were you when that wasn't the case? Why weren't you so outspoken in the cause of equality when the disenfranchised were getting screwed?

A bit hypocritical of you to suddenly take an interest now that it goes against your race or class, wouldn't you say?

by Guest Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They may have argued, but its a flawed argument, as segregation does not allow people to grow up understanding other cultures, religions, ethnic groups through daily interaction. It fails to help build bonds between people which will then help them in adult life. It helps tackle poor stereotypes and understand and see all people are fundamentally one biological race.

That's a valuable point. I think it's one that black separatists eventually realized. Still, it depends on the quality of the greater society. If the greater society is one that perpetuates negative stereotypes to be imposed on the children of the minority culture, some isolation seems advisable. It's a sliding scale I suppose, depending upon how bad the greater culture is. In America, particularly in the south, it can be beneficial.

Thorin wrote:All people should have equality under the law. That means if there is discrimination laws, that bar people, then any company that falls foul of this should be taken to task. There is no excuses and even worse to argue in defense of segregation. So by that view, we should keep all poor kids with all other poor kids in school? Those with disabilities? All schools and nurseries need to be inclusive. To say there is a need to segregated people based off privileged, is actually backing the view to privilege people, defeating the whole purpose of tackling privilege.

You can't forget the part that history played. It matters whose ox gets gored. I think it's a false equivalency to treat disparate treatment of white as the same as disparate treatment of blacks. Heretofore, and throughout history, the disparate treatment of whites has been toward privilege and power, whereas the disparate treatment of blacks has been toward poverty and lack of advantage. Now, when you try to reverse the inevitable pattern thus created, it is somewhat artificial to cry discrimination!

But, you are right, there are limits. Most of the time they try to keep proportional equalizing on the positive side, dealing with the distribution of benefits, rather than disadvantages.

But people are suffering actual discrimination from this.
When again the principle should be that all places of learning are inclusive. To go off history is being stuck by history and never then learning from that history at all. The way forward is to have neutral places of learning that are inclusive to all. So to then continue to privilege some in the view that there still remains privilege is helping to maintain a privilege. Its self defeating Quill.

So I see nothing artificial about this, as people have been denied based on their social construct of race. To me the best way to deal with racism is to do away with the social constructs in the first place. Without such social constructs, how can then racism even have a bases to argue from? If then its taught we are all one biological race and that we have ethnic groups based on the diversity of cultures, religions and places people descend from. You deny any case for racism to even be argued from. To me keeping racial classifications is just enabling racism itself.

So there is nothing artificial here, its blatant discrimination based off in this situation a view to privilege some and deny others base on their racial classification

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

That may be so... in a different place and different time...

Here we have lefties who are supposedly pro 'equality/diversity/multiculturalism' etc and anti 'discrimination/racism' etc...

Who think it is right to go against all these core beliefs of theirs, when it is against whites who speak English...!

Tommy, that is the perspective you get when you don't understand proportional equality. You keep holding to a theory of distributive equality, where the presumption is that all people start the race equally. Where were you when that wasn't the case? Why weren't you so outspoken in the cause of equality when the disenfranchised were getting screwed?

A bit hypocritical of you to suddenly take an interest now that it goes against your race or class, wouldn't you say?

The hypocrisy is from those who champion 'equality' etc... but who then do as was done in op...

by Original Quill Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's a valuable point. I think it's one that black separatists eventually realized. Still, it depends on the quality of the greater society. If the greater society is one that perpetuates negative stereotypes to be imposed on the children of the minority culture, some isolation seems advisable. It's a sliding scale I suppose, depending upon how bad the greater culture is. In America, particularly in the south, it can be beneficial.

You can't forget the part that history played. It matters whose ox gets gored. I think it's a false equivalency to treat disparate treatment of white as the same as disparate treatment of blacks. Heretofore, and throughout history, the disparate treatment of whites has been toward privilege and power, whereas the disparate treatment of blacks has been toward poverty and lack of advantage. Now, when you try to reverse the inevitable pattern thus created, it is somewhat artificial to cry discrimination!

But, you are right, there are limits. Most of the time they try to keep proportional equalizing on the positive side, dealing with the distribution of benefits, rather than disadvantages.

But people are suffering actual discrimination from this.
When again the principle should be that all places of learning are inclusive. To go off history is being stuck by history and never then learning from that history at all. The way forward is to have neutral places of learning that are inclusive to all. So to then continue to privilege some in the view that there still remains privilege is helping to maintain a privilege. Its self defeating Quill.

To believe in "neutral places" is to believe in absolute equality. If we were willing to wipe the slate clean, all people giving up all possessions, all clothes, all status, means and differences, perhaps there could be created a place we might call "neutral places". But we can never do that, if for no other reason that nature hands some people good health and fortune, and some people illness and need.

So we start out disproportionate. Face it, you didn't win the race if the guy next to you had a heart attack. Those are the fortunes. So we are trying to truly create a "neutral place" we use a sense of proportional equality...we make sure the starting line is equal for all.

Thorin wrote:So I see nothing artificial about this, as people have been denied based on their social construct of race. To me the best way to deal with racism is to do away with the social constructs in the first place. Without such social constructs, how can then racism even have a bases to argue from? If then its taught we are all one biological race and that we have ethnic groups based on the diversity of cultures, religions and places people descend from. You deny any case for racism to even be argued from. To me keeping racial classifications is just enabling racism itself.

How do you do away with social constructs? It's an ancient law, still true today, that in the absence of any effort to change things, what was...is what will be.

You try to change things on the good side of the ledger, and stay away from the burdensome and punitive, that's all. You allow for special entrance standards for the disenfranchised to go to Harvard or Berkeley, on the theory that they will then begin to reconstruct the social image that they (the disenfranchised) are unintelligent or otherwise inferior. It's better than putting the privileged in prison to achieve the same thing.

Thorin wrote:So there is nothing artificial here, its blatant discrimination based off in this situation a view to privilege some and deny others base on their racial classification

What is artificial is the belief that there is a "neutral place" called equality. The world is, at any given time, quite naturally unequal. People have unique needs. We wouldn't have a Stephen Hawking if we didn't recognize that some people are in need of special assistance...but it's worth it.

It's the same thing with whole classes of people, and whole races and ethnicities. It's particularly bad when our own history of improper conduct helped make the situation what it is. Suppose we as a culture had actually created the illnesses and injuries to Stephen Hawking...that's the situation that we have with regard to the black race living in our community. We did it. Now, we need to undo it.

by Original Quill Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Tommy, that is the perspective you get when you don't understand proportional equality. You keep holding to a theory of distributive equality, where the presumption is that all people start the race equally. Where were you when that wasn't the case? Why weren't you so outspoken in the cause of equality when the disenfranchised were getting screwed?

A bit hypocritical of you to suddenly take an interest now that it goes against your race or class, wouldn't you say?

The hypocrisy is from those who champion 'equality' etc... but who then do as was done in op...

But there are two theories of equality, tommy. You believe that equality is that "neutral place" that didge speaks of. But there is another theory of equality...that is the theory of proportional equality.

Equality is a myth unless we equalize the starting line of the race. If some people are allowed to start the race half a mile down the road, the race is meaningless. Your theory destroys the whole system.

by Guest Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:38 pm

1) Eh?. A neutral place can and does allow to cater for all needs, its just not based off any particular single identity group. People do not have top give up anything because a neutral place is run based off all being inclusive. Its set to the national curriculum for all children. Though can accommodate needs some people can have. Say for example, those with needs because of their disabilities. By neutral, the school or place of learning, has no identity group. Whether that be rich, poor, ethnic, religious etc.

2) So we do not need to start out disproportionate, as all places of learning are based off a neutral start point, that can cater for many needs, with no particular group having an advantage over others.

3) How do we change something that is not scientific? Its not even an ancient law, but something devised over the last through centuries through what was once poor scientific claims. We know biological humans are one race and that then why should we class people as if they are biologically racially different?

Its just a label at the end of the day, that enables racism itself.

3) Not allowing for any special entrance, a poor false charge made by you. I stated people can be identified by their nationality, their ethnic group etc, all things not based on science but on an identity based through the culture, religious, or no religious as the case maybe, language etc. There is no place for racial classifications, even more when we have a far better system in nationalities and ethnic groups. Racial classifications are a redundant system, that still as seen allows for the bases of a racist argument to be formed from.

4) There is a neutral place called equality, where people are all different, but can have the same laws apply to everyone. That is a neutral equality system, as "all" have equality under the law. People do have needs, but how is the needs of Hawkins a need that others need, fail to apply under a neutral equality system? It does not fail at all. A person that has no ability to walk, has needs, where as a person who can walk does not have such needs. So your view is too simplistic and fails to grasp the context of all having equality under the law.

5) Well if you want to undo the wrongs done to the black community, I suggest you stop treating them as Black and as Americans instead. As Americans, all citizens have the same rights under the laws and all ethnic groups are protected from discrimination, which includes all ethnic groups, including those black and white. You see by using the definitions of the past, you still enable the same problems. You will never achieve any form of equality, when you continue to separate people off something that does not exist biologically. By classing people as humans, you deny those that try to argue racially in the first place based off their biology.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The hypocrisy is from those who champion 'equality' etc... but who then do as was done in op...

But there are two theories of equality, tommy. You believe that equality is that "neutral place" that didge speaks of. But there is another theory of equality...that is the theory of proportional equality.

Equality is a myth unless we equalize the starting line of the race. If some people are allowed to start the race half a mile down the road, the race is meaningless. Your theory destroys the whole system.

Your waffle destroys the whole straw man argument that you created to destroy with your waffle...

Well done you!

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

All in the name of 'equality'...!

Another example of the insidious pc madness that has spread throughout the minds of leftie twats!!!

I think you are stuck in your misperception that there is such a thing as absolute equality. It serves the privileged and powerful to say that equality is the same for everyone, until someone points out that the rich and powerful start out that much better off. Where is the equality when you give someone a head start?

All you are doing is perpetuating the disadvantage. That's no a fair chance.

It's better to follow the principle of proportional equality, where the starting point is taken into account.

I don't agree with that at all. Equality should mean equality for everyone, not more equality for some.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

All in the name of 'equality'...!

Another example of the insidious pc madness that has spread throughout the minds of leftie twats!!!

I think you are stuck in your misperception that there is such a thing as absolute equality. It serves the privileged and powerful to say that equality is the same for everyone, until someone points out that the rich and powerful start out that much better off. Where is the equality when you give someone a head start?

All you are doing is perpetuating the disadvantage. That's no a fair chance.

It's better to follow the principle of proportional equality, where the starting point is taken into account.

I don't agree with that at all. Equality should mean equality for everyone, not more equality for some.

Exactly -- everyone should be born to responsible parents, get to live in a safe community, have enough to eat and sufficient medical care, and get just as good of an education as everyone else.

If equality doesn't begin at birth, you can't have it later in life.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:28 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree with that at all. Equality should mean equality for everyone, not more equality for some.

Exactly -- everyone should be born to responsible parents, get to live in a safe community, have enough to eat and sufficient medical care, and get just as good of an education as everyone else.

If equality doesn't begin at birth, you can't have it later in life.

No one can do much about the first one. Everyone is this country has a right to education and medical care though.

If you start treating one person more favourably because you think they didn't have advantages when they were young, it just perpetuates the feelings of unfairness in society.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:49 pm

And everyone should be dumbed down to the level of the stupidest too... all in the name of 'equality'...!

by Original Quill Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:51 pm

Thorin wrote:A neutral place can and does allow to cater for all needs

So in your neutral place, does everybody equally get to be a millionaire? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to marry a beautiful woman or a handsome man? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to drive an expensive automobile? Why aren't they now?

The reason, you might say, is because they have to earn it. The plot thickens, eh? Some don't have to earn their money. Trump didn't. Now look at spouses. Did Trump have to try extra hard to marry Melania? Did Rachael Weisz have to try extra hard to marry Daniel Craig? The phrase that comes to mind is, Some cats got it and some cats don't! There is no equality that occurs naturally.

So equality is an abstract, and exists nowhere in the world. It's kinda like beauty or witty...it depends on what you set up as your definition. There is no "neutral place" and advantage is all around us.

And in some places--racism being one--we actually contribute to the inequality. We like it that way. We have people who live by that status...and they are pleased that blacks are uneducated or that women cannot control their own bodies. They are pleased that they are wealthy, and you are not.

There is no equality. It's an abstract concept. It needs to be created, if you want it.

by Guest Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:A neutral place can and does allow to cater for all needs

So in your neutral place, does everybody equally get to be a millionaire? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to marry a beautiful woman or a handsome man? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to drive an expensive automobile? Why aren't they now?

The reason, you might say, is because they have to earn it. The plot thickens, eh? Some don't have to earn their money. Trump didn't. Now look at spouses. Did Trump have to try extra hard to marry Melania? Did Rachael Weisz have to try extra hard to marry Daniel Craig? The phrase that comes to mind is, Some cats got it and some cats don't! There is no equality that occurs naturally.

So equality is an abstract, and exists nowhere in the world. It's kinda like beauty or witty...it depends on what you set up as your definition. There is no "neutral place" where no one has the advantage.

And in some places--racism being one--we actually contribute to the inequality. We like it that way. We have people who live by that status...and they are pleased that blacks are uneducated or that women cannot control their own bodies. They are pleased that they are wealthy, and you are not.

There is no equality. It's an abstract concept. It needs to be created, if you want it.

1) Its a place of learning, not earning.

What did you fail to grasp from that?

What people do when and whilst they learn, is their own choices.

2) Are you saying now that when someone marries what you quantify is not beautiful, is not beautiful to them?

Flawed argument

3) How would children underage get to chose what car they can drive, when they cannot drive?

Its a school to be neutrally based and not based on a single identity group.

Sorry, but you are coming out with some very dimwitted and off topic issues, that have nothing to do with a neutral place of learning..

4) Yes there is equality under the law, or there should be in practice. Its not perfect, because people are not perfect, but the principles of equality are perfect.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:A neutral place can and does allow to cater for all needs

So in your neutral place, does everybody equally get to be a millionaire? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to marry a beautiful woman or a handsome man? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to drive an expensive automobile? Why aren't they now?

The reason, you might say, is because they have to earn it. The plot thickens, eh? Some don't have to earn their money. Trump didn't. Now look at spouses. Did Trump have to try extra hard to marry Melania? Did Rachael Weisz have to try extra hard to marry Daniel Craig? The phrase that comes to mind is, Some cats got it and some cats don't! There is no equality that occurs naturally.

So equality is an abstract, and exists nowhere in the world. It's kinda like beauty or witty...it depends on what you set up as your definition. There is no "neutral place" and advantage is all around us.

And in some places--racism being one--we actually contribute to the inequality. We like it that way. We have people who live by that status...and they are pleased that blacks are uneducated or that women cannot control their own bodies. They are pleased that they are wealthy, and you are not.

There is no equality. It's an abstract concept. It needs to be created, if you want it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Quill, and not everyone wants to drive an expensive car - there's too much paranoia about prangs. Laughing

Also, being a millionaire is so over-rated.

by eddie Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:59 pm

Would you take your child to an autistic sensory-based session if your child wasn't autistic?

Some things are specifically catered for certain children and I am not sure why this is a problem.

by Guest Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:01 pm

eddie wrote:Would you take your child to an autistic sensory-based session if your child wasn't autistic?

Some things are specifically catered for certain children and I am not sure why this is a problem.

How is that helping them to adapt and interact with non-autistic children?

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:02 pm

Being multicultural isn't special needs...

It was a kids playground...

by eddie Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:06 pm

Thorin wrote:
eddie wrote:Would you take your child to an autistic sensory-based session if your child wasn't autistic?

Some things are specifically catered for certain children and I am not sure why this is a problem.

How is that helping them to adapt and interact with non-autistic children?

Sorry you misunderstand me - these are run aalongside mainstream schools and nurseries.
I'm totally and absolutely for inclusion in mainstream schools.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:06 pm

eddie wrote:Would you take your child to an autistic sensory-based session if your child wasn't autistic?

Some things are specifically catered for certain children and I am not sure why this is a problem.

Why would you want to? Why wouldn't you want to take your child to a multicultural group?

The two things are completely different.

by eddie Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Being multicultural isn't special needs...

It was a kids playground...

Yeah might've been a crap comparison to be fair. Sounded right in my head.

by Guest Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:10 pm

eddie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How is that helping them to adapt and interact with non-autistic children?

Sorry you misunderstand me - these are run aalongside mainstream schools and nurseries.
I'm totally and absolutely for inclusion in mainstream schools.

Understood Eddie and see your point

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:13 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Being multicultural isn't special needs...

It was a kids playground...

Yeah might've been a crap comparison to be fair. Sounded right in my head.

No worries eddie...

Did you try mamas special pasta recipe yet...?

Laughing

by eddie Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Would you take your child to an autistic sensory-based session if your child wasn't autistic?

Some things are specifically catered for certain children and I am not sure why this is a problem.

Why would you want to? Why wouldn't you want to take your child to a multicultural group?

The two things are completely different.

Okay don't beat me up. They're not that different.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:24 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why would you want to? Why wouldn't you want to take your child to a multicultural group?

The two things are completely different.

Okay don't beat me up. They're not that different.

Ooooh, they are. Laughing

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:35 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So in your neutral place, does everybody equally get to be a millionaire? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to marry a beautiful woman or a handsome man? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to drive an expensive automobile? Why aren't they now?

The reason, you might say, is because they have to earn it. The plot thickens, eh? Some don't have to earn their money. Trump didn't. Now look at spouses. Did Trump have to try extra hard to marry Melania? Did Rachael Weisz have to try extra hard to marry Daniel Craig? The phrase that comes to mind is, Some cats got it and some cats don't! There is no equality that occurs naturally.

So equality is an abstract, and exists nowhere in the world. It's kinda like beauty or witty...it depends on what you set up as your definition. There is no "neutral place" and advantage is all around us.

And in some places--racism being one--we actually contribute to the inequality. We like it that way. We have people who live by that status...and they are pleased that blacks are uneducated or that women cannot control their own bodies. They are pleased that they are wealthy, and you are not.

There is no equality. It's an abstract concept. It needs to be created, if you want it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Quill, and not everyone wants to drive an expensive car - there's too much paranoia about prangs.

Also, being a millionaire is so over-rated.

You're arguing with the example, and missing the point. Re-read.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:44 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So in your neutral place, does everybody equally get to be a millionaire? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to marry a beautiful woman or a handsome man? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to drive an expensive automobile? Why aren't they now?

The reason, you might say, is because they have to earn it. The plot thickens, eh? Some don't have to earn their money. Trump didn't. Now look at spouses. Did Trump have to try extra hard to marry Melania? Did Rachael Weisz have to try extra hard to marry Daniel Craig? The phrase that comes to mind is, Some cats got it and some cats don't! There is no equality that occurs naturally.

So equality is an abstract, and exists nowhere in the world. It's kinda like beauty or witty...it depends on what you set up as your definition. There is no "neutral place" where no one has the advantage.

And in some places--racism being one--we actually contribute to the inequality. We like it that way. We have people who live by that status...and they are pleased that blacks are uneducated or that women cannot control their own bodies. They are pleased that they are wealthy, and you are not.

There is no equality. It's an abstract concept. It needs to be created, if you want it.

1) Its a place of learning, not earning.

What did you fail to grasp from that?

What people do when and whilst they learn, is their own choices.

2) Are you saying now that when someone marries what you quantify is not beautiful, is not beautiful to them?

Flawed argument

3) How would children underage get to chose what car they can drive, when they cannot drive?

Its a school to be neutrally based and not based on a single identity group.

Sorry, but you are coming out with some very dimwitted and off topic issues, that have nothing to do with a neutral place of learning..

4) Yes there is equality under the law, or there should be in practice. Its not perfect, because people are not perfect, but the principles of equality are perfect.

You are arguing with the examples, too. Let's go back to basics...Hobbes and Rousseau. Imagine a state of nature. Is there equality in the state of nature? Can you have everything that everyone else has? Obviously, no.

So equality is a social construct. But it is a valuable social construct because no one should be privileged. So that is what we are trying to achieve. In that sense, equality is justice.

But you can't have equality everywhere. You've got to select where you want it. We choose to structure things so that there is equality of opportunity, both politically and economically. The rest, we live in the state of nature.

So there it is, without examples to distract you.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:55 am

Or, here, read this:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:1. Defining the Concept

‘Equality’ is a contested concept: “People who praise it or disparage it disagree about what they are praising or disparaging” (Dworkin 2000, p. 2). Our first task is therefore to provide a clear definition of equality in the face of widespread misconceptions about its meaning as a political idea.

The terms “equality” (Gr. isotes, Lat. aequitas, aequalitas, Fr. égalité, Ger. Gleichheit), “equal,” and “equally” signify a qualitative relationship. ‘Equality’ (or ‘equal’) signifies correspondence between a group of different objects, persons, processes or circumstances that have the same qualities in at least one respect, but not all respects, i.e., regarding one specific feature, with differences in other features. ‘Equality’ needs to thus be distinguished from ‘identity’ — this concept signifying that one and the same object corresponds to itself in all its features: an object that can be referred to through various individual terms, proper names, or descriptions. For the same reason, it needs to be distinguished from ‘similarity’ — the concept of merely approximate correspondence (Dann 1975, p. 997; Menne 1962, p. 44 ff.; Westen 1990, pp. 39, 120). Thus, to say e.g. that men are equal is not to say that they are identical. Equality implies similarity rather than ‘sameness.’

In distinction to numerical identity, a judgment of equality presumes a difference between the things being compared. According to this definition, the notion of ‘complete’ or ‘absolute’ equality is self-contradictory. Two non-identical objects are never completely equal; they are different at least in their spatiotemporal location. If things do not differ they should not be called ‘equal,’ but rather, more precisely, ‘identical,’ as e.g., the morning and evening star. Here usage might vary. Some authors do consider absolute qualitative equality admissible as a borderline concept (Tugendhat & Wolf 1983, p. 170).

‘Equality’ can be used in the very same sense both to describe and prescribe, as with “thin”: “you are thin” and “you are too thin.” The approach taken to defining the standard of comparison for both descriptive and prescriptive assertions of the concept of equality is very important (Oppenheim 1970). In the case of descriptive use of equality, the common standard is itself descriptive, e.g. two people weigh the same. A prescriptive use of equality is present when a prescriptive standard is applied, i.e., a norm or rule, e.g. people ought to be equal before the law. The standards grounding prescriptive assertions of equality contain at least two components. On the one hand, there is a descriptive component, since the assertions need to contain descriptive criteria, in order to identify those people to which the rule or norm applies. The question of this identification — who belongs to which category? — may itself be normative, e.g. to whom do the U.S. laws apply? On the other hand, the comparative standards contain something normative — a moral or legal rule, in the example, the U.S. laws — specifying how those falling under the norm are to be treated. Such a rule constitutes the prescriptive component (Westen 1990, chap. 3). Sociological and economic analyses of (in-)equality mainly pose the questions of how inequalities can be determined and measured and what their causes and effects are. In contrast, social and political philosophy is in general concerned mainly with the following questions: what kind of equality, if any, should be offered, and to whom and when? Such is the case in this article as well.

‘Equality’ and ‘equal’ are incomplete predicates that necessarily generate one question: equal in what respect? (Rae 1981, p. 132 f.) Equality essentially consists of a tripartite relation between two (or several) objects or persons and one (or several) qualities. Two objects a and b are equal in a certain respect if, in that respect, they fall under the same general terminus. ‘Equality’ denotes the relation between the objects that are compared. Every comparison presumes a tertium comparationis, a concrete attribute defining the respect in which the equality applies — equality thus referring to a common sharing of this comparison-determining attribute. This relevant comparative standard represents a ‘variable’ (or ‘index’) of the concept of equality that needs to be specified in each particular case (Westen 1990, p. 10); differing conceptions of equality here emerge from one or another descriptive or normative moral standard. There is another source of diversity as well: As Temkin (1986, 1993) argues, various different standards might be used to measure inequality, with the respect in which people are compared remaining constant. The difference between a general concept and different specific conceptions (Rawls 1971, p. 21 f.) of equality may explain why according to various authors producing ‘equality’ has no unified meaning — or even is devoid of meaning. (Rae 1981, p. 127 f., 132 f.)

For this reason, it helps to think of the idea of equality or for that matter inequality, understood as an issue of social justice, not as a single principle, but as a complex group of principles forming the basic core of today's egalitarianism. Depending on which procedural principle one adopts, contrary answers are forthcoming. Both equality and inequality are complex and multifaceted concepts (Temkin 1993, chap. 2). In any real historical context, it is clear that no single notion of equality can sweep the field. (Rae 1981, p. 132) Many egalitarians concede that much of our discussion of the concept is vague and theoretical. But they believe that there is also a common underlying strain of important moral concerns implicit in it (Williams 1973). Above all it serves to remind us of our common humanity, despite various differences (cf. 2.3. below). In this sense, egalitarians tend to think of egalitarianism as a single coherent normative doctrine — but one in any case embracing a variety of principles. Following the introduction of different principles and theories of equality, I will return in the last section of this article to the question how best to define egalitarianism and the value of equality.

2. Principles of Equality and Justice

Equality in its prescriptive usage has, of course, a close connection with morality and justice in general and distributive justice in particular. From antiquity onward, equality has been considered a constitutive feature of justice. (On the history of the concept, cf. Albernethy 1959, Benn 1967, Brown 1988, Dann 1975, Thomson 1949.) Throughout history, people and emancipatory movements use the language of justice to pillory certain inequalities. But what exactly is the connection between equality and justice, i.e., what kind of role does equality play in a theory of justice? The role and correct account of equality, understood as an issue of social justice, is itself a difficult philosophical issue. To clarify this, philosophers have defended a variety of principles and conceptions of equality, many of which are mentioned in the following discussion. This section introduces four well known principles of equality, ranging from highly general and uncontroversial to more specific and controversial. The next section reviews various conceptions of the ‘currency’ of equality. Different interpretations of the role of equality in a theory of justice emerge according to which of the four following principles and which measure has been adopted.

Through its connection with justice, equality, like justice itself, has different justitianda, i.e., objects the term ‘just’ or ‘equal’ or their opposites can be applied to. These are mainly actions, persons, social institutions, and circumstances (e.g. distributions). These objects of justice stand in an internal connection and order that can here only be hinted at. The predicates “just” or “unjust” are only applicable when voluntary actions implying responsibility are in question. Justice is hence primarily related to individual actions. Individual persons are the primary bearer of responsibilities (ethical individualism). Persons have to take responsibility for their individual actions and for circumstances they could change through such actions or omissions. Although people have responsibility for both their actions and circumstances, there is a moral difference between the two justitianda, i.e., an injustice due to unjust treatment through an individual or collective action and an injustice due to a failure to correct unjust circumstances (cf. 3.1.v. below). The responsibility people have to treat individuals and groups they affect in a morally appropriate and, in particular, even-handed way has hence a certain priority over their moral duty to turn circumstances into just ones through some kind of equalization. Establishing justice of circumstances (ubiquitously and simultaneously) is beyond any given individual's capacities. Hence one has to rely on collective actions. In order to meet this moral duty, a basic order guaranteeing just circumstances must be justly created. This is an essential argument of justice in favor of establishing social institutions and fundamental state structures for political communities; with the help of such institutions and structures, individuals can collectively fulfill their responsibility in the best possible manner. If circumstances can be rightly judged to be unjust, all persons have the responsibility and moral duty, both individually and collectively, to change the pertinent circumstances or distributive schemes into just ones. In the following sections, the objects of equality may vary from topic to topic. However, as indicated, there is a close relationship between the objects. The next three principles of equality hold generally and primarily for all actions and treatment of others and for resulting circumstances. From the fourth principle onward, i.e., starting with the presumption of equality, this article is mainly concerned with distributive justice and the evaluation of distribution.

2.1 Formal Equality

When two persons have equal status in at least one normatively relevant respect, they must be treated equally with regard to this respect.This is the generally accepted formal equality principle that Aristotle formulated in reference to Plato: “treat like cases as like” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, V.3. 1131a10-b15; Politics, III.9.1280 a8-15, III. 12. 1282b18-23). Of course the crucial question is which respects are normatively relevant and which are not. Some authors see this formal principle of equality as a specific application of a rule of rationality: it is irrational, because inconsistent, to treat equal cases unequally without sufficient reasons (Berlin 1955-56). But most authors instead stress that what is here at stake is a moral principle of justice, basically corresponding with acknowledgment of the impartial and universalizable nature of moral judgments. Namely, the postulate of formal equality demands more than consistency with one's subjective preferences. What is more important is possible justification vis-à-vis others of the equal or unequal treatment in question — and this on the sole basis of a situation's objective features.

2.2 Proportional Equality

According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of equality, numerical and proportional (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1130b-1132b; cf. Plato, Laws, VI.757b-c). A form of treatment of others or as a result of it a distribution is equal numerically when it treats all persons as indistinguishable, thus treating them identically or granting them the same quantity of a good per capita. That is not always just. In contrast, a form of treatment of others or distribution is proportional or relatively equal when it treats all relevant persons in relation to their due. Just numerical equality is a special case of proportional equality. Numerical equality is only just under special circumstances, viz. when persons are equal in the relevant respects so that the relevant proportions are equal. Proportional equality further specifies formal equality; it is the more precise and detailed, hence actually the more comprehensive formulation of formal equality. It indicates what produces an adequate equality.

Proportional equality in the treatment and distribution of goods to persons involves at least the following concepts or variables: Two or more persons (P1, P2) and two or more allocations of goods to persons (G) and X and Y as the quantity in which individuals have the relevant normative quality E. This can be represented as an equation with fractions or as a ratio. If P1 has E in the amount of X and if P2 has E in the amount Y, then P1 is due G in the amount of X′ and P2 is due G in the amount of Y′, so that the ratio X/Y = X′/Y′ is valid. (N.B. For the formula to be usable, the potentially great variety of factors involved have to be both quantifiable in principle and commensurable, i.e., capable of synthesis into an aggregate value.)

When factors speak for unequal treatment or distribution, because the persons are unequal in relevant respects, the treatment or distribution proportional to these factors is just. Unequal claims to treatment or distribution must be considered proportionally: that is the prerequisite for persons being considered equally.

This principle can also be incorporated into hierarchical, inegalitarian theories. It indicates that equal output is demanded with equal input. Aristocrats, perfectionists, and meritocrats all believe that persons should be assessed according to their differing deserts, understood by them in the broad sense of fulfillment of some relevant criterion. And they believe that reward and punishment, benefits and burdens, should be proportional to such deserts. Since this definition leaves open who is due what, there can be great inequality when it comes to presumed fundamental (natural) rights, deserts, and worth — and such inequality is apparent in both Plato and Aristotle.

Aristotle's idea of justice as proportional equality contains a fundamental insight. The idea offers a framework for a rational argument between egalitarian and non-egalitarian ideas of justice, its focal point being the question of the basis for an adequate equality (Hinsch 2003). Both sides accept justice as proportional equality. Aristotle's analysis makes clear that the argument involves the features deciding whether two persons are to be considered equal or unequal in a distributive context.

On the formal level of pure conceptual explication, justice and equality are linked through these principles of formal and proportional justice. Justice cannot be explained without these equality principles; the equality principles only receive their normative significance in their role as principles of justice.

Formal and proportional equality is simply a conceptual schema. It needs to be made precise — i.e., its open variables need to be filled out. The formal postulate remains quite empty as long as it remains unclear when or through what features two or more persons or cases should be considered equal. All debates over the proper conception of justice, i.e., over who is due what, can be understood as controversies over the question of which cases are equal and which unequal (Aristotle, Politics, 1282b 22). For this reason equality theorists are correct in stressing that the claim that persons are owed equality becomes informative only when one is told — what kind of equality they are owed (Nagel 1979; Rae 1981; Sen 1992, p. 13). Actually, every normative theory implies a certain notion of equality. In order to outline their position, egalitarians must thus take account of a specific (egalitarian) conception of equality. To do so, they need to identify substantive principles of equality, discussed below.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:23 am

I am arguing from a neutral place of learning and that you can have equality for all under the law.

Nature has nothing to do with this, but how you can and we should have neutral places of learning.

But if you want to use that flawed argument, even animals except and adopt other species in raising them.

Not sure how you fail to understand this and an example of US legal cases, has zero bases universally.

Nobody even claimed equality was not a social construct, but a rule, a rule of law that we have based on reason.

So I am at a loss from what on earth you are going on about.

If this rule applies, then all should have protection under this law.

In this case people were discriminated racially, because the place was not neutral and inclusive.

If places of learning are inclusive, then you have no such issues.

So you can have equality for all under the law.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:44 am

I'd like to know what a "multicultural family" is. Is it a family where all the members are from different cultures? If they mean non-white people, or people who have foreign accents, they should just say so instead of using jargon.

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:32 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:A neutral place can and does allow to cater for all needs

So in your neutral place, does everybody equally get to be a millionaire? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to marry a beautiful woman or a handsome man? Why aren't they now? Does everybody equally get to drive an expensive automobile? Why aren't they now?

The reason, you might say, is because they have to earn it. The plot thickens, eh? Some don't have to earn their money. Trump didn't. Now look at spouses. Did Trump have to try extra hard to marry Melania? Did Rachael Weisz have to try extra hard to marry Daniel Craig? The phrase that comes to mind is, Some cats got it and some cats don't! There is no equality that occurs naturally.

So equality is an abstract, and exists nowhere in the world. It's kinda like beauty or witty...it depends on what you set up as your definition. There is no "neutral place" where no one has the advantage.

And in some places--racism being one--we actually contribute to the inequality. We like it that way. We have people who live by that status...and they are pleased that blacks are uneducated or that women cannot control their own bodies. They are pleased that they are wealthy, and you are not.

There is no equality. It's an abstract concept. It needs to be created, if you want it.

1) Its a place of learning, not earning.

What did you fail to grasp from that?

What people do when and whilst they learn, is their own choices.

2) Are you saying now that when someone marries what you quantify is not beautiful, is not beautiful to them?

Flawed argument

3) How would children underage get to chose what car they can drive, when they cannot drive?

Its a school to be neutrally based and not based on a single identity group.

Sorry, but you are coming out with some very dimwitted and off topic issues, that have nothing to do with a neutral place of learning..

4) Yes there is equality under the law, or there should be in practice. Its not perfect, because people are not perfect, but the principles of equality are perfect.

Ummm this isn't a school or a place of learning

"Play groups" I think might be called "mother's groups" in other countries
having 2 younger brothers I can remember going (I had grown out of them) and really they are for mothers to Gossip and stuff while the pre-preschool kids (under 3 years old) 'play'.
in the western suburbs where it is really multicultural, they can be held in MacDonald's if they have a good play area Wink

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:38 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Its a place of learning, not earning.

What did you fail to grasp from that?

What people do when and whilst they learn, is their own choices.

2) Are you saying now that when someone marries what you quantify is not beautiful, is not beautiful to them?

Flawed argument

3) How would children underage get to chose what car they can drive, when they cannot drive?

Its a school to be neutrally based and not based on a single identity group.

Sorry, but you are coming out with some very dimwitted and off topic issues, that have nothing to do with a neutral place of learning..

4) Yes there is equality under the law, or there should be in practice. Its not perfect, because people are not perfect, but the principles of equality are perfect.

Ummm this isn't a school or a place of learning

"Play groups" I think might be called "mother's groups" in other countries
having 2 younger brothers I can remember going (I had grown out of them) and really they are for mothers to Gossip and stuff while the pre-preschool kids (under 3 years old) 'play'.
in the western suburbs where it is really multicultural, they can be held in MacDonald's if they have a good play area

lol its still a place of learning for the children and even more so interaction.

Anyway, you understand what I mean by inclusive to all.

Any place can be used for meetings, though not sure Macdonals would be the healthiest lol

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:40 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd like to know what a "multicultural family" is. Is it a family where all the members are from different cultures? If they mean non-white people, or people who have foreign accents, they should just say so instead of using jargon.

it means
'from more than one cultural background'
Whites can be multicultral but not Anglo and Anglo or Chinese and Chinese (for example)

Most would sound Aussie (they do in that area very few migrants except rich Chinese students, there is 2 universities near by) but they have a parent or grand parents from other places. (most common multicultural is One Anglo-Celtic Aussie with a migrant or first generation Aussie)

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:46 am

@thorin

yes I under stand you point, and this Is a group ran by dickheads

But like I said sort of typical in that area, as it is too expensive for most new migrants and way to expensive for refugees. But they like to pretend they are the home of inclusiveness and have high liberal morals, they also like to pretend to be struggling artist and musicians, but live somewhere that I couldn't afford to even as a fairly high paid IT contractor. basically people with rich parents Mum and children told to leave playgroup because they were not 'multicultural' . - Page 2 2190311264

Mum and children told to leave playgroup because they were not 'multicultural' . - Page 2 2190311264

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:54 am

veya_victaous wrote:@thorin

yes I under stand you point, and this Is a group ran by dickheads

But like I said sort of typical in that area, as it is too expensive for most new migrants and way to expensive for refugees. But they like to pretend they are the home of inclusiveness and have high liberal morals, they also like to pretend to be struggling artist and musicians, but live somewhere that I couldn't afford to even as a fairly high paid IT contractor. basically people with rich parents

I think the word you are looking for is that they are regressive's. As they end up practicing illiberal policies, from an intention to do good, but end up doing wrongs.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:51 pm

Thorin wrote:I am arguing from a neutral place of learning and that you can have equality for all under the law.

Nature has nothing to do with this, but how you can and we should have neutral places of learning.

But if you want to use that flawed argument, even animals except and adopt other species in raising them.

Not sure how you fail to understand this and an example of US legal cases, has zero bases universally.

You say you are “arguing from” your “neutral place of learning.” Where is this neutral place of learning? Obviously it is in England, or you wouldn’t have such ready access to it. Perhaps that is the problem, as it is not available to all. Is there any way you can share it with us? Why don’t you put up coordinates of your neutral place of learning so that it isn’t occult to the rest of us?

Thorin wrote:Nobody even claimed equality was not a social construct, but a rule, a rule of law that we have based on reason.

So I am at a loss from what on earth you are going on about.

If this rule applies, then all should have protection under this law.

Let’s get back to basics. A rule of law is a succinct statement for all to understand. You have never stated the rule of law of equality as you understand it. Let’s hear it. Perhaps there are alternatives.

You can start that discussion. So far all I hear are some hollow words which apparently relate to certain abstruse metaphysical concepts (eg, “neutral place of learning”). That’s a problem…perhaps if you can bring it down to earth, so that we’re not left with the Jackson Browne of political ideas.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:58 pm

1) You are the only one that cannot grasp the point of a neutral place of learning, that has no identity group.

So explain why you cannot understand?

Its inclusive to all and can cater for all needs.

2) So your point on England is a moot point

3) I have stated it many times. That all people should have equality under the law. Not sure what you fail to grasp from that?

4) Then you end without understanding a single point made and go off what you have read from others and cannot form an opinion from yourself. Its only you out of all posters that cannot understand something so simple, because you over complicate everything.

So your input is at an end in this debate, as you have throughout refused to take on or even understand the points

So thanks for your input, but as you cannot grasps what is being said, its pointless continuing this with you.

I would have better luck watching paint dry, than you understanding something so simple.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:07 pm

Thorin wrote:1) You are the only one that cannot grasp the point of a neutral place of learning, that has no identity group.

So explain why you cannot understand?

Its inclusive to all and can cater for all needs.

You're right. I don't understand what is "neutral place of learning". Won't you please help me understand? What does it look like. Is it big, or small and compact. Where is it? How do we find it?

Thorin wrote:4) Then you end without understanding a single point made and go off what you have read from others and cannot form an opinion from yourself

So your input is at an end in this debate, as you have throughout refused to take on or even understand the points

So thanks for your input, but as you cannot grasps what is being said, its pointless continuing this with you.

I would have better luck watching paint dry, than you understanding something so simple.

I look at it as the beginning of my part, to take baby steps and ask for meaning. I ask the most logical question: What and where is your "neutral place of learning". Until you can explain that, there is no debate. You haven't started it.

Jacklson Browne is an American rock singer/songwriter who was once reputed to write songs with stylish lyrics...that didn't mean anything at all. They just sounded cool. "Runnin' on empty...la-te-da" WTF does that mean? Are you going to leave us with that kind of legacy?

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:16 pm

I have explained it many times, that a place of learning has no identity,
For example not religious, political, charity etc. Its run neutrally.

Quite simple really, that all other posters on this thread have understood, that is inclusive to all.

It stops bias and discrimination of which we see happen in the UK through places of learning being allowed to run such places of learning.

Well you made some very illogical points, like your claim that a person will end up marrying someone not beautiful based on your perception of looks, and not on their attraction going to a neutral school. You want to illogically maintain racial labels, that have no bases in biology. Claiming people cannot make their own choices on whether to learn or not, if they become rich or not, failing to understand, passion, drive, the will to succeed etc. So you really are on the loss to claim logical, when the bases for all your claims has been made on assumptions you have formed from reading some philosophers.

So I offered plenty throughout and you wasted countless posts, by not even understanding something so utterly simple.

Like I said to you, if you want to stop historical racism in America, stop treating Black people as Black and start treating them as Humans and Americans. You did a massive retreat after that.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:54 pm

Thorin wrote:I have explained it many times, that a place of learning has no identity,
For example not religious, political, charity etc. Its run neutrally.

Quite simple really, that all other posters on this thread have understood, that is inclusive to all.

It stops bias and discrimination of which we see happen in the UK through places of learning being allowed to run such places of learning.

Well you made some very illogical points, like your claim that a person will end up marrying someone not beautiful based on your perception of looks, and not on their attraction going to a neutral school. You want to illogically maintain racial labels, that have no bases in biology. Claiming people cannot make their own choices on whether to learn or not, if they become rich or not, failing to understand, passion, drive, the will to succeed etc. So you really are on the loss to claim logical, when the bases for all your claims has been made on assumptions you have formed from reading some philosophers.

So I offered plenty throughout and you wasted countless posts, by not even understanding something so utterly simple.

Like I said to you, if you want to stop historical racism in America, stop treating Black people as Black and start treating them as Humans and Americans. You did a massive retreat after that.

All right, let's open it up to everyone. Can anyone tell us where this "neutral place of learning" is located? Let's begin simply...give us the 'A' roads and some markers, and we can ask directions when we get close. It will help if you give us the nearby city, how far away, etc.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:I have explained it many times, that a place of learning has no identity,
For example not religious, political, charity etc. Its run neutrally.

Quite simple really, that all other posters on this thread have understood, that is inclusive to all.

It stops bias and discrimination of which we see happen in the UK through places of learning being allowed to run such places of learning.

Well you made some very illogical points, like your claim that a person will end up marrying someone not beautiful based on your perception of looks, and not on their attraction going to a neutral school. You want to illogically maintain racial labels, that have no bases in biology. Claiming people cannot make their own choices on whether to learn or not, if they become rich or not, failing to understand, passion, drive, the will to succeed etc. So you really are on the loss to claim logical, when the bases for all your claims has been made on assumptions you have formed from reading some philosophers.

So I offered plenty throughout and you wasted countless posts, by not even understanding something so utterly simple.

Like I said to you, if you want to stop historical racism in America, stop treating Black people as Black and start treating them as Humans and Americans. You did a massive retreat after that.

All right, let's open it up to everyone. Can anyone tell us where this "neutral place of learning" is located? Let's begin simply...give us the 'A' roads and some markers, and we can ask directions when we get close. It will help if you give us the nearby city, how far away, etc.

PMSL

So you still failed to grasp the point it seems.

And by the above you clearly are rattled.

I can point to many schools in the UK that are neutral, based off the understanding I gave you.

Its not rocket science.

And to other posters, just check their replies to me, in other words read the thread

Doh

by eddie Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:44 pm

A "neutral place of learning" roughly translates as, "inclusion and equality for everyone in one place"....doesn't it?

Why is Quill asking for a map?

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:11 pm

eddie wrote:A "neutral place of learning" roughly translates as, "inclusion and equality for everyone in one place"....doesn't it?

Why is Quill asking for a map?

Because I want to know where it is. Is equality where everyone is equally wealthy? Are people equal in power? Do they have an equal number of children? If everybody is equally the same, isn't that a pretty non-distinct place?

I keep asking didge for what and where he thinks equality is, and he just goes round and round with abstruse words. You've just repeated one. I thought the idea of a road map would give him a hint as to how to proceed.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:42 pm

eddie wrote:A "neutral place of learning" roughly translates as, "inclusion and equality for everyone in one place"....doesn't it?

Why is Quill asking for a map?

Because he is the only one that cannot understand something so simple.

Hey ho

by Syl Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:A "neutral place of learning" roughly translates as, "inclusion and equality for everyone in one place"....doesn't it?

Why is Quill asking for a map?

Because I want to know where it is. Is equality where everyone is equally wealthy? Are people equal in power? Do they have an equal number of children? If everybody is equally the same, isn't that a pretty non-distinct place?

I keep asking didge for what and where he thinks equality is, and he just goes round and round with abstruse words. You've just repeated one. I thought the idea of a road map would give him a hint as to how to proceed.

Obviously people are not all born with equality to others, how can they be when some people in the world are starving and some are rolling in luxury?

Simply put people should be treated equally in their own communities, they should all have the same chances of education, job opportunities within their field, the same rights as one another.

In an ideal world everyone should have these opportunities, obviously they never will.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:49 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Because I want to know where it is. Is equality where everyone is equally wealthy? Are people equal in power? Do they have an equal number of children? If everybody is equally the same, isn't that a pretty non-distinct place?

I keep asking didge for what and where he thinks equality is, and he just goes round and round with abstruse words. You've just repeated one. I thought the idea of a road map would give him a hint as to how to proceed.

Obviously people are not all born with equality to others, how can they be when some people in the world are starving and some are rolling in luxury?

Simply put people should be treated equally in their own communities, they should all have the same chances of education, job opportunities within their field, the same rights as one another.

In an ideal world everyone should have these opportunities, obviously they never will.

What I was hoping to do was to provoke this kind of discussion about different theories of equality. I even posted from the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which, if anyone had bothered to read it, would have provided specific directions to the discussions.

There are at least two different kinds of equality: 1) equality of opportunity, most commonly associated with meritocratic orders; and 2) equality of outcome, most commonly associated with essential life.

We generally follow the equality of opportunity theory, in routine matters like economics. However, when it comes to life and political freedoms, equality of outcome is what we want. I use the examples from marriage to portray the equality of opportunity issue. I use the example of life and death circumstances, healthcare, and even the example of Stephen Hawkins to portray the need, in certain areas, for equality of outcome.

There is a sub-set of problems that arise when we, a majority, are ourselves the cause of the inequality...as, for example, racism in the southern regions of the US. That is deliberate, or forced inequality. Because it is the most prevalent kind of inequality (eg, US, South Africa, Rwanda, Burundi, etc.), we use that for the model, saying that there is equality absent forced inequality. That is not the case. Another issue I wanted to discuss.

But alas, clearly this not the audience for that deep a discussion. Live and learn.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:59 pm

More unfounded accusations and falsehoods by Quill to views made by others.

Anyway, as he seems to fail to understand, I thought I would post this for others to watch.

by Syl Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Obviously people are not all born with equality to others, how can they be when some people in the world are starving and some are rolling in luxury?

Simply put people should be treated equally in their own communities, they should all have the same chances of education, job opportunities within their field, the same rights as one another.

In an ideal world everyone should have these opportunities, obviously they never will.

What I was hoping to do was to provoke this kind of discussion about different theories of equality. I even posted from the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which, if anyone had bothered to read it, would have provided specific directions to the discussions.

There are at least two different kinds of equality: 1) equality of opportunity, most commonly associated with meritocratic orders; and 2) equality of outcome, most commonly associated with essential life.

We generally follow the equality of opportunity theory, in routine matters like economics. However, when it comes to life and political freedoms, equality of outcome is what we want. I use the examples from marriage to portray the equality of opportunity issue. I use the example of life and death circumstances, healthcare, and even the example of Stephen Hawkins to portray the need, in certain areas, for equality of outcome.

There is a sub-set of problems that arise when we, a majority, are ourselves the cause of the inequality...as, for example, racism in the southern regions of the US. That is deliberate, or forced inequality. Because it is the most prevalent kind of inequality (eg, US, South Africa, Rwanda, Burundi, etc.), we use that for the model, saying that there is equality absent forced inequality. That is not the case. Another issue I wanted to discuss.

But alas, clearly this not the audience for that deep a discussion. Live and learn.

Was that meant to sound so patronising??

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:18 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What I was hoping to do was to provoke this kind of discussion about different theories of equality. I even posted from the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which, if anyone had bothered to read it, would have provided specific directions to the discussions.

There are at least two different kinds of equality: 1) equality of opportunity, most commonly associated with meritocratic orders; and 2) equality of outcome, most commonly associated with essential life.

We generally follow the equality of opportunity theory, in routine matters like economics. However, when it comes to life and political freedoms, equality of outcome is what we want. I use the examples from marriage to portray the equality of opportunity issue. I use the example of life and death circumstances, healthcare, and even the example of Stephen Hawkins to portray the need, in certain areas, for equality of outcome.

There is a sub-set of problems that arise when we, a majority, are ourselves the cause of the inequality...as, for example, racism in the southern regions of the US. That is deliberate, or forced inequality. Because it is the most prevalent kind of inequality (eg, US, South Africa, Rwanda, Burundi, etc.), we use that for the model, saying that there is equality absent forced inequality. That is not the case. Another issue I wanted to discuss.

But alas, clearly this not the audience for that deep a discussion. Live and learn.

Was that meant to sound so patronising??

He has read a couple of philosophers views on this and thinks nobody else has a conceivable concept or view on this. Hence why he avoided most of my views throughout.

Hey ho

by Syl Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:24 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Was that meant to sound so patronising??

He has read a couple of philosophers views on this and thinks nobody else has a conceivable concept or view on this. Hence why he avoided most of my views throughout.

Hey ho

Its always good to try and understand other peoples views even if we don't always agree with them.

I honestly do try to comprehend what Quill says, and I accept that he is learned and intelligent, far more than me (for eg) but sometimes I do feel like I am reading an exam paper that I don't quite grasp when Quill is on a roll.

Maybe he is right and I for one am not his target audience. Laughing

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

He has read a couple of philosophers views on this and thinks nobody else has a conceivable concept or view on this. Hence why he avoided most of my views throughout.

Hey ho

Its always good to try and understand other peoples views even if we don't always agree with them.

I honestly do try to comprehend what Quill says, and I accept that he is learned and intelligent, far more than me (for eg) but sometimes I do feel like I am reading an exam paper that I don't quite grasp when Quill is on a roll.

Maybe he is right and I for one am not his target audience.

I understand plenty of what he says and where he believes things are not workable.
He has views, we all have views on this and one thing I know is that treating people biologically different, has forever caused endless discrimination. Whether that be through gender, to the social construct of race etc, when we should simple treat each other as human beings.

His view on beauty and marriage though was absurd. That now marriage is based on beauty and that school will determine whether people choose people only through attraction and not love. Basing this on equality.

Love is the finest example of equality, where two people share that same love for each other. As love is more than just looks. Of course we all have to be attracted to people but its love that unites two people together.

So I see the points he makes on philosophy, but its a poor misdirection to the issue at hand. Where we do have discrimination laws, as does Australia on the social construct of race. In this case white Aussies were racially discriminated.

by Sponsored content