For those who don't believe in the idea of equal rights at all - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14900622
One Degree wrote:I thought I answered your questions very well, but I am not surprised you could not tell.


Really? I asked for a real world example and you did not provide one. If you think that is doing something well, then we have to disagree on what that means.

Your world view requires you to simply disregard any other world views as being insignificant to your equation. Your arguments are based upon everyone agreeing with your basic view. When presented with an alternative view, you ignore it.


No, I ignored your discussion about your beliefs because it was irrelevant.

The point is you may not like racists, homophobes, Amish, Mormons, Native Americans, etc., but there is no objective reason for not allowing them to live as they choose. Can you guarantee me 100% that the future will not prove they were right? Let go of your self righteousness and realize we should be tolerant of all views because we basically know nothing. To only be tolerant of those who agree with you is not tolerance.


You seem to think that racism and homophobia are cultures. This is wrong. Comparing them to actual cultures, like indigenous ones, is stupid and wrong.

And frankly, why should I tolerate racism and homophobia? What do I get out of it? Should I compromise with them and let them oppress me, my family, and my friends three days a week, and only criticise them the other four days?

Tolerating the intolerant is just suporting intolerance.

I am totally content with only my area being in agreement with my beliefs. If the people in your area want to eat one another, then I don’t have a problem with that. Who am I to tell someone what they believe is wrong?


Fine, then take all the people who agree with you and go live by yourselves. No one is forcing you to stay in our diverse society that includes people from allwalks of life and all over the world.

Most of what we believe is simply parroting what someone else decided. We did not even decide it for ourselves. It is just some guys opinion we liked. Views on equal rights are so new historically that it is silly to even assume the idea will last. Only our self righteousness makes us believe in their ‘eternal truth for everyone’.


Since no one thinks this is an eternal truth for everyone, this is irrelevant.

And you still have not shown how equal rights give anyone special treatment.
#14900638
My expressing tolerance for groups of people does not mean I am a member of such groups. Your assumption that I can only advocate tolerance for groups I agree with demonstrates the shallowness of your own tolerance.
Please explain how different cultures living under the same laws will not eventually lose their ‘equal rights’. As time passes, cultural conflicts will arise and the courts will decide the ‘right’ way. So long equal right. Those who opposed abortion and gay marriage lost their rights. Now they are reversing it so the other side loses their rights. There is no ‘equal rights’. It has to be one or the other for the self righteous. Only local autonomy can give both equal rights.
#14900641
One Degree wrote:My expressing tolerance for groups of people does not mean I am a member of such groups. Your assumption that I can only advocate tolerance for groups I agree with demonstrates the shallowness of your own tolerance.


Since I never said this, this is just a strawman and I will ignore it.

But hey, at least you slipped in a personal attack!

Please explain how different cultures living under the same laws will not eventually lose their ‘equal rights’. As time passes, cultural conflicts will arise and the courts will decide the ‘right’ way. So long equal right. Those who opposed abortion and gay marriage lost their rights. Now they are reversing it so the other side loses their rights. There is no ‘equal rights’. It has to be one or the other for the self righteous.


Except no one lost their rights when abortion or gay marriage was legalised. People can still choose to not get abortions. People can still choose not to marry someone of their own gender.

The only ability that was lost was the ability to deprive minorities of rights. And since minorities do not get the ability to deprive others of their rights when they achieve equality, everyone is still equal after minorities achieve equality.

Rights are not a zero sum game.

Only local autonomy can give both equal rights.


No. Your model simply allows the majority of each autonomous community the right to oppress everyone else.
#14900687
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since no one argued that equal rights means “equal rights for all entities for all things”, the previous post is a strawman and can therefore be ignored.

Which is the point, when people talk about "equal rights" they mean some rights for some entities to some things and there is nothing "equal" about that.
#14900693
SolarCross wrote:Which is the point, when people talk about "equal rights" they mean some rights for some entities to some things and there is nothing "equal" about that.


Let us examine a situation where there can be more than one form of equality:

Imagine a building that has two floors. There are stairs joing the two floors, as well as another flight of stairs from the ground floor to the sidewalk outside. There are also ramps leading from the sidewalk to the front door, and an elevator between floors.

We could impose a form of equality on everyone and make everyone use the stairs, and this would be equal in one way, but it would exclude wheelchair users and other people with mobility issues from the building.

Or we could hang little signs by the elevator doors saying that priority should be given to people with mobility issues or strollers, and signs by the ramp indicating wheelchair access and asking people not to lock their bikes to the railing. This would h e everyone equal access to all aprts of the building, even though it creates an inequality in that people without wheelchairs are asked to take the stairs and leave ramps and elevators free for others.

So some forms of equality make more sense, in terms of making everyone equally likely to be productive members of society, than simply demanding “equal rights for all entities for all things” and then dismissing all equality movements because they do not fit this ridiculous ideal.
#14900695
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let us examine a situation where there can be more than one form of equality:

Imagine a building that has two floors. There are stairs joing the two floors, as well as another flight of stairs from the ground floor to the sidewalk outside. There are also ramps leading from the sidewalk to the front door, and an elevator between floors.

We could impose a form of equality on everyone and make everyone use the stairs, and this would be equal in one way, but it would exclude wheelchair users and other people with mobility issues from the building.

Or we could hang little signs by the elevator doors saying that priority should be given to people with mobility issues or strollers, and signs by the ramp indicating wheelchair access and asking people not to lock their bikes to the railing. This would h e everyone equal access to all aprts of the building, even though it creates an inequality in that people without wheelchairs are asked to take the stairs and leave ramps and elevators free for others.

So some forms of equality make more sense, in terms of making everyone equally likely to be productive members of society, than simply demanding “equal rights for all entities for all things” and then dismissing all equality movements because they do not fit this ridiculous ideal.


So you agree that "equal rights" is a euphemism for special privileges? I am totally fine with people bargaining for special privileges just do it honestly.
#14900700
Pants-of-dog wrote:@SolarCross

Why do you bother quoting my posts when you ignore what I write and then continue with whatever you were saying?

What did I write that had anything to do with special privileges?

Priority for elevators and ramps is a special privilege. Which is okay, I am by no means suggesting that it is a bad thing for wheelchair users to get that privilege, but it is what it is don't lie about it.
#14900706
Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it a privilege?

I appreciate that English isn't your first language but would it hurt you to double check the dictionary before using a word for which you don't know the meaning?

privilege = A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
Last edited by SolarCross on 28 Mar 2018 21:37, edited 2 times in total.
#14900708
SolarCross wrote:Equal rights are just a stupid talking point for half wits to bray about. In practice no one believes in equal rights for all entities for all things. No one.

Rights are societal undertakings to constrain their members' behavior with respect to one another. So only people and their designated institutions can have rights, not "all entities." The concept of equal rights only applies to people who are recognized as such.
#14900735
SolarCross wrote:I appreciate that English isn't your first language but would it hurt you to double check the dictionary before using a word for which you don't know the meaning?

privilege = A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.


Since everyone can use the ramps and elevators, they are not a privilege.

Conversely, forcing the other idea of equality (the one more consistent with your weird idea that all things should be equal for all beings always) would mean that only people without wheelchairs can easily access the building. That would then be a privilege according to your definition.

But if you have a way of making it so that all people so that everyone has equal access to the builiding and no one has privileges, I would love to hear it.

Also I like the English comments from someone who uses grocer’s apostrophes.
#14900755
NightShadows wrote:Could you explain why for that matter?

It's an idea that has outlived its usefulness. It was originally posited by freeborn white property owning men in the United States in the late 18th Century. It was never intended to apply to the non-free, non-property owning, racial minorities, women, and so forth. The cultural marxists who seek inequality everywhere and desire some sort of political remedy have just become a bunch of useless shit disturbers.

Decky wrote:Why should people refuse to work get the same as the people who get up in the morning and work? Capitalists, landlords, aristocrats, people who derive their income from share dividends and other social parasitises living by sealing surplus value fro the labour of the workers only have the right to a camp in Siberia. Why should the workers continue letting the idle rich live from our labour when they do nothing at all themselves?

That's a pretty interesting but archaic jab. The largest group of people who don't work today are welfare recipients. In the United States, among the biggest problems we face is that many of the poor don't work at all. They can't "find" work, and so they get welfare. We import illegal immigrants to do the jobs that "poor" people won't do, because they can get welfare.

The Immortal Goon wrote:In another example, blacks in the South of the Untied States are allowed to vote. But they must do so on a word day, often far from their house, at one of far fewer polling stations, and between shorter hours of many of their white counterparts. They have, theoretically, entirely the same rights as people in a wealthy white district (don't get defensive, my own district three thousand miles away is comparatively affluent and white). But someone getting off work and waiting in a line hundreds deep in hopes that the polling station doesn't close before everyone is turned away doesn't exactly have the same functional way to exercise that right as I do—where I get the ballot mailed to me, I do it at my leisure over a cup of tea in front of the computer, going over everyone and every issue in detail.

Do not believe this. ^^^ Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and West Virginia have early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. There are Northern states as well as Southern states that do not have early voting, or require an excuse for absentee voting. They are: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Missouri, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and New Hampshire. In other words, there are more people in the North and more states in the North where they don't have early voting, vote-by-mail or absentee voting without an excuse. The idea that blacks have to vote on different days and so forth is just pure bullshit and nothing more.

Drlee wrote:Civil Rights matter because if you deprive enough people of them for long enough they will get guns and kill your selfish ass.

This is from a guy who canvassed for Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since everyone can use the ramps and elevators, they are not a privilege.

Well, I guess that leaves us with handicapped parking spots.
#14900877
Godstud wrote:Whether or not you believe in equal rights doesn't matter, since most societies do,

No they don't. Nation states are by they're very nature massively discriminatory. Citizenship rights being based on biological inheritance. Citizenship of Rwanda or Congo is not equal to citizenship of the US or Luxembourg. Even within the EU there is massive discrimination. A Luxembourger has huge electoral privilege far outweighing the electoral privilege of Whites in the 1950s Jim Crow South.

eg. Canada deemed that universal access to healthcare is a right. Thus this stands as a right in Canada.

Your "belief" is irrelevant to its existence.

No neither Canadians or British receive the same publicly funded health care as the parasitic filth known as the royal family. Any Royalist that claims to support equal rights is a hypocritical arsehole.
#14900880
Rich wrote:Nation states are by they're very nature massively discriminatory. Citizenship rights being based on biological inheritance. Citizenship of Rwanda or Congo is not equal to citizenship of the US or Luxembourg. Even within the EU there is massive discrimination. A Luxembourger has huge electoral privilege far outweighing the electoral privilege of Whites in the 1950s Jim Crow South.
You are only speaking about tiny nation states that are the exception. Luxembourgh? really? :lol:

Rich wrote:No neither Canadians or British receive the same publicly funded health care as the parasitic filth known as the royal family. Any Royalist that claims to support equal rights is a hypocritical arsehole.
The rich have always gotten superior healthcare everywhere. You having a hissy fit about it doesn't change anything. I am sure that Trump gets superior healthcare to every other American.
#14917271
Perhaps the definition of 'equal rights' should be equally enforced limitations to enforce your will upon others. Thus, if one can protest in a certain manner, then all can protest in similar manner. If one cannot deny a service to another, then all cannot deny that service to any others. If one cannot assault another, then all cannot assault any others.
It's something of an "all or none" concept. If one can, or cannot, do a thing, then everyone can, or cannot, do that thing. I think this is the very basis of "equal rights", (which is separate from egalitarianism, or 'equality of outcomes').
#14917306
Igor Antunov wrote:Just as we can coexist beside dogs, cats, sheep, cockroaches, etc we should be able to exist (and ideally be symbiotic about it) alongside our fellow untermenchen. And I don't mean from a class standpoint, but purely from a racial one. The reason I don't believe in equal rights from a racial standpoint is because some ethnicities and regional population derivatives (american designation of race is too broad and useless a term) are cognitively inferior. You don't give equal rights to dumber animals. You treat them humanely, but you put them in their place so that they can be of maximum benefit to themselves and others. For example, you don't allow them near the organs of power, and you make sure that they can be controlled, both for their safety and that of others.


I guess that is Why NATO bombed the shit out of your country. I always thought it to be a mistake but now I am not so sure. It is funny, how for all of the untermench talk of yours, you are the one living abroad and doing work-business in another country :lol: So much for your master race.....
#14917311
JohnRawls wrote:So much for your master race.....


They just fell on hard times.

Even aliens crash their UFOs in places like Arizona every-once-in-awhile.

That doesn't mean they aren't still superior. :lol:


Anyway, regarding the thesis of this thread.

I reject egalitarianism entirely and hold that the true hierarchies of humanity are accurately discovered in a state of Anarchy.

An artificial equality is no equality at all. In fact, the very existence of a state-enforced equality is evidence that the natural-equality is in fact not there. Furthermore, the same goes for state enforced hierarchies, the fact that they need to be enforced to survive demonstrates that those in upper ranks of those hierarchies don't deserve to be there.

It is simple as that.

The fact that certain demographics, without a state, will produce and succeed in variance to other groups and along demographic lines is all the proof I need to know that egalitarianism is nonsense as an anthropology.

Now, as a Christian, I believe in the inherent equality of all men before God, in the sense that all are equally sinful and under judgement and all were made, equally, in the Image of God. However, this inherent human dignity and depravity says nothing about the equality of outcomes given human performance in a state of nature; especially, given whatever endowments they were or were not given along demographic and even individual lines.

Lets all be honest.

If all states ceased to exist, once the smoked cleared, feminism and almost every other insane identity movement of the last 100 years would be seen nowhere on this earth.

This is the simple reality of the situation.
Trump, Oh my god !

Really Blackjack. You just can't resist childish […]

Atheism is Evil

But, socially, psychologically, and work wise, ma[…]

The alt-right has jumped on the climate-change de[…]

In the meantime, try to solve the liberty contrac[…]