Derec
Contributor
Coming from you, that's a badge of honor!Sargon of Akkad...
What a fucking racist piece of shit!
Coming from you, that's a badge of honor!Sargon of Akkad...
What a fucking racist piece of shit!
So basically anybody who does not kowtow to left-wing orthodoxy on every issue is a "bad-faith dickhead". Understood.And is utterly incapable of holding a thought without segwaying into some other bullshit. Other examples of bad faith dickheads are Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Bill Kristol, Jordan Peterson, Bari Weiss, David Rubin, and Ben Shapiro.
Here's an article highlighting the sort of person who uses this phrase and the final paragraph sums it up nicely.
Some bad-faith dickhead over at Daily Dot said:What classical liberalism really is is a way to justify conservative thought without having the courage to stand behind the ugliest conservative ideals.
What Loren wrote has nothing to do with capitalism per se. Besides, what is wrong with capitalism?Who says that? It sounds like nonsensical capitalistic propoganda to me, not a coherent political philosophy of any sort.
Equal opportunities do not guarantee equal outcomes. People have different abilities, and do not apply themselves to the same extent.If you have preditably unequal outcomes, that should be a pretty obvious indication to out that equality of opportunity is a myth.
People are far more complex than widgets like valves. For one, we have agency, the ability to make our own choices. Pipe valves do not.When the assembly line starts churning out broken pipe valves, do you turn to the supervisor and say "I guaranteed proper functioning of the machine, not proper results"? No, because he would point out the blooming obvious: properly functioning machines don't produce broken products.
Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!
Nixon wasn't a classical liberal. Classical liberals do not agree with the War on Drugs.Nixon's 'War on Drugs' is proof that some laws are specifically aimed at particular demographic sectors of a society.
Including illegal immigrants? That is what the Wall is intended to stop - not legal immigration.I cherish our status as "The Nation of Immigrants". Had Trump accomplished building it, I'd want to regress to that status.
To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?
An Olympics or World Cup run by principles Toni, Hermit et al are espousing here would be interesting - as an SNL sketch.Have you ever wondered why the runners finish with different times?
My college professor (ethics requirement class) would describe classical liberalism (and also liberalism as used in say "liberal democracy") as "John Locke liberalism, not Ted Kennedy liberalism".I don't know the history of the term "Liberalism" or "Classical Liberalism" but John Locke (1632-1704) is called the "Father of Liberalism."
Each lane is the same length, thus making sure each runner is traversing the same distance. Equality of opportunity. Same standard for each runner.That is not the point. The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.
Correct. That is what affirmative action is meant to do - levelling the playing field. Many metaphorical Einsteins never get a chance because they start off from too far behind - in the metaphorical cotton fields and sweatshops.To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".
Are you suggesting that when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability? That’s an astute observation.The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.
It's more than a suggestion. You put in other words what I actually wrote.Are you suggesting that when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability? That’s an astute observation.The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.
So, it isn't often when I get to be quite as pedantic as I can get when it comes to you, LD, but hoo boy..."Unfair " (or "fair) cannot be an objective standard, because the notion of fairness and unfairness depend on personal feelings.Saying it isn't objective doesn't make it so."Actually unfair" is not an objective standard - that is the point.But you need to show that the rules are actually unfair. This comes back to the same thing as always--using disparate results as proof of racism. Yeah, it's only claimed to be evidence of, but it's taken on faith and not subject to rebuttal. Thus it's functionally considered proof.That is classic conservative bullshit because it presumes that "pathe "rules" have been agreed upon by everyone, not imposed by the powerful to entrench their position.
I mean... I was born in... Well, I only remember the barest pieces of it: the dirty underside of a sink. Cupboards I could easily get into. It was dark and dim much of the time.That is not the point. The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.Have you ever wondered why the runners finish with different times?"The law", as you put it, applies to everyone equally. So far, so good, but it assumes a level playing field. The field is not level, and not just from a monetary point of view. That is just the most visible aspect of some people starting with a handicap.Show how the law is wrong, don't just claim it is and expect us to take it on faith.
Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?
400 metre race at the 2012 London Olympics
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
So disparate impact does not mean unfair rules or discrimination?It's more than a suggestion. You put in other words what I actually wrote.Are you suggesting that when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability? That’s an astute observation.The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.
School vouchers so the parents can send their children to the best school rather than the failing public option. + 1.I would rather see every child get as much education as they are capable of.
Not "as much education as their parents can afford", but "as they are capable of".
How so? No one argues that everyone participating in X should achieve the same outcome. What people do argue is that everyone who wishes to participate in X should get the opportunity to participate in X and their achievements or lack of achievements should be judged fairly.Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!
Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity.
That is not evidence of your claim that the US was the most progressive society in the history of the world when it was founded more than two centuries ago. You made an affirmative claim of fact. It is up to you to support it.And? Could you let us know what other society before these dead White guys was better? Without these dead White guys, you wouldn't have the freedoms you have today....more than two centuries ago...When the US was founded more than two centuries ago, it was the most progressive society in the history of the world.