Liberals are delusional humanists; they think everyone is good. If someone does evil, it isn’t the person’s fault, it’s societies.
There are no evil people, we are just all controlled by society…believes the liberal.
I like the way people who oppose liberals always define them in some very negative way.
It is very hard for a conservative to define a liberal because we are nuanced and live with
shades of gray. It is very easy for a liberal to define a conservative because a conservative is
a person who forsakes rational thought and logic for emotionalism. A conservative is all about
“how they feel”
Now as for equality, it is simply the process where a person has the same chance to succeed as
the next person. We want people to have the same chance for success as everyone else does.
So we promote head start, WIC, and give people food stamps and housing allowances to give them
a chance. by raising the lower class, we give them an equal chance to succeed as someone who comes
from a wealthier background and that is the point. We are trying to equalize the opportunities people
have to succeed. Equality=opportunities.
Kropotkin
Er, don’t you think conservatives also think they are hard to define for liberals and liberals are easy to define for them? Not to mention the other things you say…
Where does determinism end and chance begin? If the universe is determinate, one either has a 0% or a 100% chance to succeed. If everyone is to have the same chance to succeed, then, everyone must be the same–which also means they must occupy the exact same spot in space-time…
If, on the other hand, the universe is completely random, everyone already has the same chance to succeed. So insofar as the universe is determinate, people must be the same if they are to have the same chance to succeed. So where would you say determinism ends and chance begins?
You’re talking means, not opportunities. Wealth is a means. A poor black man has the same opportunity to buy a mansion as a rich white man if he could be the buyer if he were only rich.
Theophrastus, the successor to Aristotle, in the Peripatetic School, continued Aristotle’s work in classification of physical and biological items, and produced a work called “Character Sketches” where he tries to classify people categorically by features.
The Stoics from Zeno to Chryssipus built heavily on this tradition in their medical classifications via Aristotelian Categories, listic people via worthwhile and good attributes in a category, while Posidendonius, Arius Didymus and Cicero broke with it, while Galen reinforced it the older system (I assume Asclepciodotus and Emperor Augustus backed Posidindonius).
The two variations continue in odd forms to this day… the Vedandic religion mutated Posidindonus position (from a chariot with two horses representing faculties of the mind to five senses, but it incorporates other features elsewhere) while Theophrastus to Galen tradition survived in Ethnography until the mid twentieth century, still used by forum member Cezar (they a little backwards in Bosnia in terms of the curriculum).
We currently just break down certain loose categories of self as not having inherent limitations on most forms of labor, such as nationality, race, or sex if you want to be hired to wash dishes, but nationality matters if you want to work top secret, and used to matter until recently if president.
Same with sex, nearly full uniformity, but with exceptions to combat, as women are prone to yeast infections more than three days in the field… Candidia doesnt care for feminist arguments.
Its just a play on rivalries between the Peripatetic and Stoic Schools, and factions within the Stoics of the late republic, early principate.
That is the literal, exact, precise answer. It is literally perfect, on par with the best answer possible. However, it will be ignored, no one will ever look into these things I said, and people will say banal shit to one another as a response, even though I gave the only correct answer, that is awesomely indepth and concise.
Why do I bother…
Contra, are you sure that it’s everyone else always misinterpreting you and overlooking your answers? I mean…you could probably do the world a great service if you were to maybe say the things you do a little differently. Who knows man?
Rights (Wiki) - are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
Rights allow us to interact and cooperate with mutual benefit. It’s a framework for how to treat each other at a standard that wont undermine either party.
By it’s design, one attributes rights to others by default. If one didn’t do this, it would render the invention useless. If I don’t respect your rights, you will ignore the concept all together of entitlement and fight against me, because I’ve treated you in a way that causes you harm.
To grant equal rights, means to eliminate reason for conflict, and establish a fair system for cooperation.
This is a wonderful example of a straw man argument. That a black person should not get a longer sentence than a white person for committing the same crime, has nothing to do with liberals thinking that everyone is the same. Most conservatives think that people should be treated the same under the law - in many many types of sameness. IOW a conservative is not likely to think a rich person should be able to pay their way out of a murder charge - not directly, like cash to the court, that is. This does not mean that conservatives and liberals think that midgets are tall.
And this should be obvious. I never hear anyone saying that all humans have the same capabilities. Even communists or anarchists. No one. YOu are hallucinating.
Contra has a talent for being very precisely uninteresting.
New Oxford American Dictionary:
egalitarian |iˌgaləˈterēən|
adjective
of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities: a fairer, more egalitarian society.
Notice the distinction between " all people are equal " and " deserve equal right/oppurtunities " ?
Apparently, they are referring to two different things otherwise it would be redundant.
What exactly is implied in " all people are equal " ? Is this an emanation of the constitution? That all were created equal by God?
Are we all created equal? Or are we all different, possessing different potentials and so on? And if so, why should we be treated equally when, in reality, we are not equal?
No one is born equal nor is anyone born with God given rights or natural rights; rights are contrived by humans - they are imaginary.
Different and equal are not opposites. Why treat the words as opposite?
Not opposites? How so, dear?
Equal is synonymous with identical, the same.
Cute kitty cat btw.
Really so you and your family are identical to each other? There are no differences?
If so, just how the hell do you tell each other apart?
I will tell Screamer you complimented her 
No, I never said I was identical to my family members. We are related, obviously, but not exactly the same. You are being a silly pea 
" Screamer " ha! She looks like a calm kitty-cat in the picture. I would have never guessed.
She started screaming during her birth and has never lowered her voice since, its all at the top of her lungs or nothing.
Now, you did say equal is synonymous with identical did you not? I presume your family is equal, so that would mean identical, by your own words… 
contra: when I post I never post for anyone else but me. I don’t care if anyone responds or not.
I simply post here for my benefit and the clarity of my thought.
If someone should post, then I use that post to further my own thought, nothing more.
Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin: I like the way people who oppose liberals always define them in some very negative way.
It is very hard for a conservative to define a liberal because we are nuanced and live with
shades of gray. It is very easy for a liberal to define a conservative because a conservative is
a person who forsakes rational thought and logic for emotionalism. A conservative is all about
“how they feel”
S: Er, don’t you think conservatives also think they are hard to define for liberals and liberals are easy to define for them? Not to mention the other things you say…
K: Nope. Conservatives very much believe in black and white, yes or no, good and evil wereas liberals
see the shades of gray because we live in world that is more then black and white, yes and no, good and evil.
Now as for equality, it is simply the process where a person has the same chance to succeed as
the next person. We want people to have the same chance for success as everyone else does."
S: where does determinism end and chance begin? If the universe is determinate, one either has a 0% or a 100% chance to succeed. If everyone is to have the same chance to succeed, then, everyone must be the same–which also means they must occupy the exact same spot in space-time…
K: this is great stuff however has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the topic at.
S: If, on the other hand, the universe is completely random, everyone already has the same chance to succeed. So insofar as the universe is determinate, people must be the same if they are to have the same chance to succeed. So where would you say determinism ends and chance begins?
K: still has nothing to do with nothing.
K: So we promote head start, WIC, and give people food stamps and housing allowances to give them
a chance. by raising the lower class, we give them an equal chance to succeed as someone who comes
from a wealthier background and that is the point. We are trying to equalize the opportunities people
have to succeed. Equality=opportunities.
[/quote]
S: You’re talking means, not opportunities. Wealth is a means. A poor black man has the same opportunity to buy a mansion as a rich white man if he could be the buyer if he were only rich.
K; and completely missing the point. The black person living in the slums with no chance at an real education
from birth has no chance of ever buying the mansion whereas George bush comes from a wealthy family
and without any talent or intelligence and a business failure (both the business he started failed miserably)
was able to buy part of the rangers because daddies friends loaned him the money (interest free) and he
when the rangers sold, he was able to get many millions off of that loan which cost him nothing.
that is what I am talking about. Giving everyone the same chance to compete as the next guy and
when you don’t get the same opportunity as the white guy that puts you at a disavatage compare
to the person who has the oppurtunities as say bush lite. That is the point.
Kropotkin
I can be even more boring…
books.google.com/books?id=m65JAA … =html_text
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimus_Laberius
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publilius_Syrus
Alot of later Stoic outlook, especially thinkers like Seneca, comes from Publius Syrus… both authors leave us significant fragments, and for all intents and purposes, they… and not the greeks, are the foundation of modern theater and screen writing.
This even also had a massive influence on Seneca’s close relations, Emperor Nero, and Petronius… and the manner and defiance Petronius went about his death. The initial contest between Laberius and Syrus helped cement it in western culture, for that was when the conflict was expositioned first to the masses. Laberius, but especially Syrus, excelled at the artistic presentation of stereotypes via character types, meant to be mimicked and mimed by the masses watching. We get much of our understanding, to this day, by such methods of exposition.
I can go on, and on, and on… every era, every age below the widespread twinkling of the stars… past, present, perhaps future. Not just a philosopher, but a historian am I. A incredibly bored and disappointed one at that. This shit makes my dick go limp.
I see Krop made a post prior to me finishing submitting this… the structure proves the method highlighted above. Its a fucking play for him, with bad dialogue. Why not dress some colorful romans up and have them Rant in a theatrical solo to a audience as well Peter? Its where you get the method. You mimic without knowing the origins, or the limitations.
I hate all of you, you stupid fucking boring people. You… cant you just research this stuff like a real philosopher, instead of carrying on these half assed farces of debate and never having the answers?
Im going to go eat a sandwich.
lol - I have 5 cats. One of which is a main coon. Kind of reminds me of yours, just fluffier.
My family and I are not " equal" ; we have a common genetic lineage, but we are not equal. The word " equal " just seems like a misnomer in this context. Relation and equality are not synonymous.
We don’t count how many 4 footed kids we have, we would have to admit we are crazy if we did but, to be fair, my husband and I both come from large families, we grew up with family chaos.
Screamer does have Maine Coon in her blood, about 1/3 of the cats do (rolling eyes and smiling).
Well, you don’t look down on your family or are subservient to them, are you? I know if you have a large family there will be at least one of each type, snobby or passive, we all are related to to someone like that.
Equal in this means you do not look down upon or are not subservient to family. You each have your own abilities and flaws that are different, some maybe assholes or too nice, etc. But your status is viewed as equals within the family, well unless they are little kids or grandparents/parent/ uncle, aunt…Let’s stick with sibs and cousins in this.
If your parents/grand are remotely like mine you say yes sir or maam to them.
You are not ever ever going to be equal. So, cousins and sibs, ok?
Contra-Nietzsche:
I can go on, and on, and on… every era, every age below the widespread twinkling of the stars… past, present, perhaps future. Not just a philosopher, but a historian am I. A incredibly bored and disappointed one at that. This shit makes my dick go limp.
K: me too.
C: I see Krop made a post prior to me finishing submitting this… the structure proves the method highlighted above. Its a fucking play for him, with bad dialogue. Why not dress some colorful romans up and have them Rant in a theatrical solo to a audience as well Peter? Its where you get the method. You mimic without knowing the origins, or the limitations.
K: A play? not at all. I am old and fortunately my ego has been put into check by the years of life. I don’t need plays or drama (I hate drama. It is annoying.) Mimic? interesting choice of words. I believe in research. I research everything
and the reason I do this is simple because I like to out research people.
C: I hate all of you, you stupid fucking boring people. You… cant you just research this stuff like a real philosopher, instead of carrying on these half assed farces of debate and never having the answers?
K: We do have answers, you just don’t like the answers.
C: I’m going to go eat a sandwich.
K: that is my answer to everything, when in doubt eat a sandwich.
Kropotkin