🇳🇱
This is pretty much what most Republicans sound like to me at this point.
Well if you know anything about my opinions you'd know I have no love for the left either. But in this case they just dont happen to be whom I am addressing.
That said, equality in the sense of every race and sex must be in equal proportion in everything, is a flawed idea for sure. There are plenty of other flawed ideas of the left.
That said in their defense the general intent of creating a world that is a more fair place for people of all sexes and races is a good goal to want to achieve.
I agree wholly.
I want a better world for all sexes and races.
I am skeptical of "fair" because this does not necessarily lead to "better."
I am skeptical of "equality" because this always leads to parasitism.
And course, diversity is tyranny:
https://www.amerika.org/politics/aristotle-and-plato-on-why-diversity-is-tyranny/
IMHO what makes conservatives weird is that they know Leftism is decay, but also believe it is gonna win, therefore are people without hope who turn to religion for comfort.
> I am skeptical of "fair" because this does not necessarily lead to "better."
Can you give an example where somethign which is fair is worse than something that is unfair? I suppose it would depend on who is defining fair. By what i would define as fair I cant find anything that would agree with this assertion.
> I am skeptical of "equality" because this always leads to parasitism.
Certainly our current notions in polticis of equality has some aspects that lead to that, no doubt.. but to say "always" seems like a huge leap. Though again depends what we mean by equality,if we are going by the idea that "everything must have an equal proportion of all sex and races" in that case I do agree. If equality however refers to equality of opportunity and NOT equality of outcome then I'd disagree.
"If equality however refers to equality of opportunity and NOT equality of outcome then I'd disagree."
Equality is only proven by equity.
This is the problem there...
As far as "fairness," it is usually conflated with equity since otherwise, you have reason to assume "unfairness."
Well equity and fairness are literally synonyms except that equity specifically includes impartiality whereas fairness is more general.
So while i can understand an issue with equality of outcome, I'm not sure why that is the same as saying you have an issue with equability, or the act of being fair and impartial.
I don't see equality and fairness being the same.
It's fair for me to consider the net contributions and expenses of a person in a courtroom.
I don't think a repeat criminal should have the same "rights" as someone with zero crimes to their name, for example.
> I don't see equality and fairness being the same.
I think you misread what I said. Equality (of outcome) and fairness are **not** the same.. Equity and fairness are the same. Equity is also not the same as equality since equality can mean equality of outcome or equality of oppertunity. Equity would effectively be the same as equality of oppertunity, or close to it, but distinctly different from equality of outcome. The reason for this is that while equality of outcome requires an unfair bias for people based on race or sex equality of oppertunity only requires people have the same oppertunity in an unbiased way.
> People need someone who understands their situation and why it is not an average or generic.
I agree on that, though im not sure it is in anyway contrary to what I am asserting here. Obviously equality of outcome would require some generic responses, but im not sure equity, or equality of oppertunity would.
> But, there are also people who are dysfunctional and need to be removed so the others do not have to subsidize them.
What does "removed" mean, and dysfunctional how? Obviously we put violent people away, so to an extent society seems to agree with you. But obviously this can be a dangerous power when abused.
I myself would agree with this to the extreme, even to the point of disagreeing with societal norms. We shouldnt simply remove someone from society, though that may need to be a temporary measure. We need to help rehabilitate people, which takes resources.
I think in being fair considering the nuance and characteristics of a person can often be a requirement, yes.
For me, the classic example is the two plaintiffs.
One is a career criminal.
The other is a citizen with zero criminal record and zero indications that they have ever done anything wrong (perhaps they have done illegal things, like copying that floppy, but nothing that causes direct damage).
I would not treat these people in the context of equality or equity.
Fairness here is recognizing that the career criminal should have fewer rights and be seen for what he is.
While these people arent equal and i can understand not treating them equal, since equity is defined as "unbiased fairness" im not sure why you wouldnt treat them with equity.
Equity here would mean that we consider what actually made these people criminals and if they had the same oppertunities and chances in life.. in other words, considering the nuance and context.
For example an equitable response might be "Yes you are a career criminal, you have in 20 other cases been violent in a bar and got arrested. However because you are a veteran who was drafted and forced to server in a war you didnt want to, and developed extreme PTSD we will be a little more understanding in our sentancing"
Since the person simply didnt have the same opportunity to be a healthy well functioning person society in this case would consider that and effect his sentencing accordingly. Thats what equity is.
"Equity here would mean that we consider what actually made these people criminals and if they had the same oppertunities and chances in life.. in other words, considering the nuance and context."
And what if the answer is simply mental health problems and low IQ stemming from biological unfitness?
Equity tends to mean equality of outcome, to use your phrase, because that way the individual is subsidized.
I think the subsidies accelerate the self-destruction of a society.
First off, i dont find language that suggests absolute truths helpful at all.. There are **opinions** about what the purpose of penal law should be, there arent 3 fixed reasons that are some ultimate correct answer to such a question.
Your wording is suggestive (I hope im wrong and will give you the benefit of the doubt) of an incoming toxic engagement, if that is the case I am not interested. That said I will for the moment give you the benefit of the doubt and answer you.
I can think of far more than 3 reasons for penal law. Some reaasons I can think of why a society might want penal laws (some of which i may agree with some I may not):
* Deterrant to crime - If there is a consequence and punishment to crime then it would discourage people commiting crimes. Crimes should be things that generally are harmful to society or personal rights.
* protect the public from harm - since crimes are harmful, and punishment is a deterrant to crime (as above) if effective it would reduce harm
* Rehabilitation - By arresting someone and taking away some of their freedoms allows us to force rehabilitation on a person who might otherwise not seek it. Thus allowing them to reenter society without causing harm later.
* Justice - This one (which i strongly disagree with personally) is almost spirtual in nature for many. There is just some divine cosmic rightness in the idea that someone who harms someone else gets harmed back. Its just "fair" to some people.
* Consolation to victims - By harming someone who does harm to you a victim might feel someone consoled by this fact.
* To avoid public unrest - When someone causes harm people are angry, by punishing them it may avoid things like riots or other civil unrest resulting in the lack of justice
I could easily list a dozen more reasons if i really wanted to, but those are some of the broad strokes.
I see one purpose to a penal system: protect functional people from dysfunctional ones.
That includes removal of the latter, ideally by exile.
That is certainly one very primary role, to prevent harm to good people.
The problem is that by simply taking the stance that anyone who does harm shall be cast into the sea in itself does harm and therefore does not cause your intended goal.
If a government for example forces against their will someone to be a murderer for 4 years (what we call drafting someone), and that person winds up being a violent person due to their traumas inflicted upon them, and then the consequence of that violence is for them to be cast into the sea.. then we have not prevented good people from harm, we have in fact infliced harm on a good person.
So unfortunately this mentally is contradictory to its own purpose when applied universally.
I don't believe that being drafted into the military turns people into violent sociopaths. They had to have that trait in them.
That being said, stabbing soldiers in the back like our culture did after Vietnam will discourage mental stability and encourage bitterness.
> I don't believe that being drafted into the military turns people into violent sociopaths. They had to have that trait in them.
Regardless if they had that lingering trait, the point is before the army they did not exhibit violence, after the army they did. So the fact that the army caused a latent trait to become active would still be at the blame of them being drafted.
"the point is before the army they did not exhibit violence, after the army they did"
True, but we don't get to see what would have happened otherwise, so we cannot draw the causal link...
Your position serves none of these purposes.
Rehabilitation: Making an exception does not serve a rehabilitative purpose. So a fail.
Deterrence: Making an exception not only doesn't deter, but it leads others to believe that their conduct will be excepted too. So your position fails again.
Finally: Incapacitation. By making a sentencing exception that doesn't serve the other two purposes, incapacitation is the primary function in your scenario. But you want to shorten the sentence too, which doesn't incapacitate a harmful person, someone that you've failed to rehabilitate via your chosen exception. Thus, You fail again.
Please don't don't ever write law or be a judge. 😒
When did I claim that my position was that they should be given exceptions? I said that their cirtcumstances should be considered to ensure we have effective rehabilitation in our response to a crime. That is not the same as saying they should be excused and let free to roam when they commited a crime simply because there is a reason for it.
> Please don't don't ever write law or be a judge. 😒
This statement is getting dangerously close to that toxicity I mentioned... keep it classy.
Sorry. There's nothing classy here. If you can't handle a little gruff, you're not cut out for law. Trust me.
Nicecrew blocked me? Far out. I knew I was annoying but not that annoying.
Guapachoso 
You'd probably appreciate it more ifyou knew I was open carrying in this get up.
I like the sports coat or suit jacket. The khaki or grey light-colored suit needs to make a comeback.
I remember there's a specific term for light-colored suits but it escapes the mind at the moment.
The style worked. We are required to get dressed up for our Freemasonry meetings, so the suit and tie was a requirement. That said I do wear a tie often since I run a decent sized company.
Seems appropriate. I like it when people take the effort to make suits nice-looking.
My personal nice dress preference is basically this setup minus the jacked. Im a big fan of suspenders and a tie sans the jacket. But ill put on a jacked if i need a little extra class :) The freemasons require it.
I have to admit being skeptical of beards after having grown one in the past. It was itchy and hard to clean. People said that there is some sort of magic threshold past which this gets easier, but I never got there and didn't like the aesthetics on me, so bailed out.
I actually hate wearing a beard. This is as long as it gets. Most of the time its short ans scruffy. I usually shave it off completely every week or two once it annoys me.
I am guilty of going a few days without shaving sometimes but end up in the same cycle. At some point, peak irritation kicks in and I shave it all off.
For me it isnt entierly lazyness, though it is in part.
For me the ideal is some very short (like 1 mm) scruff.. I dont like the look of no hair at all, and when it gets too long it is annoying. But right at just a little scruff (what you see in this picture and shorter) I like from both a comfort and look perspective.
Only reason i say its lazy is because instead of shaving it to my exact length every day i just go through the 2 week cycle, and shaveit clean to buy me a few extra days. I mean im happy anywhere in the range so why not.
Remember no yucky toxicity we have to be fags and give each other weiner rubs
I couldnt care less about gruff, you want to enjoy yourself and throw around some crude nonsense by all means go for it. I just have no interest in being involved in a toxic and childish conversation with someone who cant help but resort to personal attacks because he cant bother to actual articulate a meaningful discussion.
Why did I waste my time.
True equity is when you sit to pee to make the troons feel safe.
"Equity and fairness are the same. Equity is also not the same as equality since equality can mean equality of outcome or equality of oppertunity."
Equality is only proven by equity (to those who desire equality).
It's worth thinking about.
I agree that "fairness" is not equality or equity, but it's a vague term.
To me, fairness means taking into account human differences.