The "Equality" Fallacy

[PoliticalChic]

fairness is not synonymous with equality. sorry.

fucking ditzy moron.

Shouldn't you be cooking dinner?

You should be sorry....that you're a drooling idiot.
Of course, you're wrong.
...but you're probably used to that.


1. For Liberals, equality before the law wasn't enough.
Under the new definition of equality, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

2. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

More?

Sure.

3. John Dewey, who changed the name 'Progressive" to 'Liberal,' noted in 1936 that liberalism’s “philosophy has rarely been clear cut,” but “that government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged.”
Jo Ann Boydston, “John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953,” p. 284-285.


Did I make you look as stupid as you are?

Is that even possible.




It is true that you thought Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife?

 

[expatriate]

no one is suggesting that the rich give up all of their wealth to the poor so that everyone has exactly the same amount of material or financial resources. I also find it hilarious that you think that John Dewey was a democratic politician.

 

[PoliticalChic]

no one is suggesting that the rich give up all of their wealth to the poor so that everyone has exactly the same amount of material or financial resources. I also find it hilarious that you think that John Dewey was a democratic politician.

How did you decide to pass up "HighSchoolDropOut" as your avi?

 

[ShackledNation]

I believe in equity, not equality.

 

[jasonnfree]

Riddle me this.............

Welders are in HIGH DEMAND in our area. Their pay is increasing as the demand for Good Welders is at a all time high now. So if your not making a lot of money and want to better yourself, you could go to welding school or go in as a helper and still make a lot of money, or choose to work at Walmart..........If you choose the lesser path and make less money who's fault is it? Is it the evil Corps paying top dollar for a TRADE or your own choice of jobs?

A welder is JAM UP, and another is sorry arse have to redo his work all the time type, who should the company keep. The worthless can't pass a Xray type or the one who is Jam Up.

Secondly, that Jam up welder decides to create his own business and falls flat on his butt because he's not business savy.............

To each his own, but their are OPPORTUNITIES out there, not just welders, for those willing to apply themselves to better their lives and the lives of their families. It is their choices that takes them down their own paths. Which is what America is about.

If you live in a bad employment area, where the future is glim...........................MOVE.......To where the jobs are, and STOP WHINING.

What's the term jam up mean? Sounds like a hotshot welder right? I welded in tank shops for a couple of years and never heard that term is all. I agree with your post though.

 

[expatriate]

no one is suggesting that the rich give up all of their wealth to the poor so that everyone has exactly the same amount of material or financial resources. I also find it hilarious that you think that John Dewey was a democratic politician.

How did you decide to pass up "HighSchoolDropOut" as your avi?

is that really all you have? caustic insulting little one liners?

what I said is true. NOBODY with any juice in the democratic party would ever be so foolish as to suggest that equality of wealth was anything that the party stood for or aspired to. NOBODY. TO suggest otherwise is just typical hyper-partisan fearmongering like Limbaugh and Hannity pump out every day. Don't I recall that you claimed to have gone to a school that supposedly taught you to think for yourself.? what happened? Were you too busy fucking your way to a tuition payment to pay any attention to your professors? And if you fuck anything like you think, you'd have to do a whole hell of a lot of fucking just to pay for a text book.

 

[expatriate]

Hell... I wouldn't fuck you with 007's dick if it were for free.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hell... I wouldn't fuck you with 007's dick if it were for free.

You're a filthy mouthed boor.

As is so common among the uneducated, you believe that some vulgarity serves as a valid response to facts.

When you behave thus around others, try to notice the eye-rolling that follows.

 

[expatriate]

Hell... I wouldn't fuck you with 007's dick if it were for free.

You're a filthy mouthed boor.

As is so common among the uneducated, you believe that some vulgarity serves as a valid response to facts.

When you behave thus around others, try to notice the eye-rolling that follows.

as we have already determined, I have more education than you do. Insults are insults. If you think that insults that have certain words in them are somehow not as "nice" as those that don't... well... I think there is clearly a lacuna in your reasoning. Lacuna... that is the new word you just learned yesterday, isn't it? How cute. I can't wait to watch you overuse the hell out of it in the days to come in your attempts to appear smarter, more sophisticated, and more urbane than you really are.

the fact remains... no democrat on the national scene has ever said that we should take all the wealth in the country and divide it equally amongst everyone. NOT ONE.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hell... I wouldn't fuck you with 007's dick if it were for free.

You're a filthy mouthed boor.

As is so common among the uneducated, you believe that some vulgarity serves as a valid response to facts.

When you behave thus around others, try to notice the eye-rolling that follows.

as we have already determined, I have more education than you do. Insults are insults. If you think that insults that have certain words in them are somehow not as "nice" as those that don't... well... I think there is clearly a lacuna in your reasoning. Lacuna... that is the new word you just learned yesterday, isn't it? How cute. I can't wait to watch you overuse the hell out of it in the days to come in your attempts to appear smarter, more sophisticated, and more urbane than you really are.

the fact remains... no democrat on the national scene has ever said that we should take all the wealth in the country and divide it equally amongst everyone. NOT ONE.

You're a dunce.

 

[expatriate]

see you next tuesday!

 

[Freemason9]

"Equality" depends upon how you define it. It also depends upon your value system--as well as your sense of history.

Because hugely inequal societies (in terms of economies and rights) tend to violently collapse. Just how inequal are you willing to allow America to become, PC, simply to allow some Masters of the Universe to have their power platforms?

Some believe that a nation is only as good as how it treats its most impoverished citizens.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Equality" depends upon how you define it. It also depends upon your value system--as well as your sense of history.

Because hugely inequal societies (in terms of economies and rights) tend to violently collapse. Just how inequal are you willing to allow America to become, PC, simply to allow some Masters of the Universe to have their power platforms?

Some believe that a nation is only as good as how it treats its most impoverished citizens.

The definition of "impoverished" is at issue.


There is virtually no material poverty in the nation.

Such is defined as no home, no heat no food.


There is a great deal of social poverty...and it is engendered by Progressive/Liberal/Democrat policy.

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

From Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.

 

[Freemason9]

"Equality" depends upon how you define it. It also depends upon your value system--as well as your sense of history.

Because hugely inequal societies (in terms of economies and rights) tend to violently collapse. Just how inequal are you willing to allow America to become, PC, simply to allow some Masters of the Universe to have their power platforms?

Some believe that a nation is only as good as how it treats its most impoverished citizens.

The definition of "impoverished" is at issue.


There is virtually no material poverty in the nation.

Such is defined as no home, no heat no food.


There is a great deal of social poverty...and it is engendered by Progressive/Liberal/Democrat policy.

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

From Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.

Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs. Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient to allow folks to become independent. Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population.

Unlike you, though, I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing. This is a creation of the dual party/one ideology that infests this country. The political system supports the economic system; the Masters of the Universe remain so by keeping the rest of the citizenry in its place.

There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Equality" depends upon how you define it. It also depends upon your value system--as well as your sense of history.

Because hugely inequal societies (in terms of economies and rights) tend to violently collapse. Just how inequal are you willing to allow America to become, PC, simply to allow some Masters of the Universe to have their power platforms?

Some believe that a nation is only as good as how it treats its most impoverished citizens.

The definition of "impoverished" is at issue.


There is virtually no material poverty in the nation.

Such is defined as no home, no heat no food.


There is a great deal of social poverty...and it is engendered by Progressive/Liberal/Democrat policy.

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

From Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.

Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs. Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient to allow folks to become independent. Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population.

Unlike you, though, I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing. This is a creation of the dual party/one ideology that infests this country. The political system supports the economic system; the Masters of the Universe remain so by keeping the rest of the citizenry in its place.

There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy.

1. "Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs."

You're not the most articulate poster....but that quote seems to mean that you agree with me that there is no material poverty.

Of course, as you have no way to know the the truth re: government programs, you happy to pretend that you can guess same.



2. "Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient..."
You know no such thing.


Government taxes and regulations make it impossible to know.


3. "Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population."
You're a dunce.

What a slander of the American people.

Want me to prove it? Sure: what amount of every 'welfare dollar,' i.e., taken from taxpayers and laundered through the government....
...actually gets to welfare recipients?

I know....do you?
The answer will show the value of the vaunted welfare system.



4. " I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing."
That's because you are....let me repeat.....a dunce.



5. Your use of the word 'infests' with reference to the system may move you out of duncehood status.


6. "There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy."

OMG.
How do they keep folks like you so ignorant??



a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

b. The transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income.
W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.

c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

 

[Freemason9]

The definition of "impoverished" is at issue.


There is virtually no material poverty in the nation.

Such is defined as no home, no heat no food.


There is a great deal of social poverty...and it is engendered by Progressive/Liberal/Democrat policy.

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

From Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.

Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs. Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient to allow folks to become independent. Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population.

Unlike you, though, I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing. This is a creation of the dual party/one ideology that infests this country. The political system supports the economic system; the Masters of the Universe remain so by keeping the rest of the citizenry in its place.

There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy.

1. "Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs."

You're not the most articulate poster....but that quote seems to mean that you agree with me that there is no material poverty.

Of course, as you have no way to know the the truth re: government programs, you happy to pretend that you can guess same.



2. "Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient..."
You know no such thing.


Government taxes and regulations make it impossible to know.


3. "Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population."
You're a dunce.

What a slander of the American people.

Want me to prove it? Sure: what amount of every 'welfare dollar,' i.e., taken from taxpayers and laundered through the government....
...actually gets to welfare recipients?

I know....do you?
The answer will show the value of the vaunted welfare system.



4. " I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing."
That's because you are....let me repeat.....a dunce.



5. Your use of the word 'infests' with reference to the system may move you out of duncehood status.


6. "There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy."

OMG.
How do they keep folks like you so ignorant??



a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

b. The transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income.
W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.

c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

WTF? You're using 1999 data now?

Jesus. You are thick.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs. Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient to allow folks to become independent. Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population.

Unlike you, though, I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing. This is a creation of the dual party/one ideology that infests this country. The political system supports the economic system; the Masters of the Universe remain so by keeping the rest of the citizenry in its place.

There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy.

1. "Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs."

You're not the most articulate poster....but that quote seems to mean that you agree with me that there is no material poverty.

Of course, as you have no way to know the the truth re: government programs, you happy to pretend that you can guess same.



2. "Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient..."
You know no such thing.


Government taxes and regulations make it impossible to know.


3. "Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population."
You're a dunce.

What a slander of the American people.

Want me to prove it? Sure: what amount of every 'welfare dollar,' i.e., taken from taxpayers and laundered through the government....
...actually gets to welfare recipients?

I know....do you?
The answer will show the value of the vaunted welfare system.



4. " I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing."
That's because you are....let me repeat.....a dunce.



5. Your use of the word 'infests' with reference to the system may move you out of duncehood status.


6. "There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy."

OMG.
How do they keep folks like you so ignorant??



a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

b. The transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income.
W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.

c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

WTF? You're using 1999 data now?

Jesus. You are thick.

Please.....don't hesitate to show where the premise is incorrect.


Let's review:

a. there is no perennial rich or poor class in America.

b. you're a dunce.

 

[Jos]

"Did you know that there are thousands upon thousands of homeless people that are living underground beneath the streets of major U.S. cities? It is happening i…n Las Vegas, it is happening in New York City and it is even happening in Kansas City. As the economy crumbles, poverty in the United States isabsolutely exploding and so is homelessness. In addition to the thousands of “tunnel people” living under the streets of America, there are also thousands that are living in tent cities, there are tens of thousands that are living in their vehicles and there are more than a million public school children that do not have a home to go back to at night.
Homeless Americans living at underground beneath | Time to wake up!

 

[Jos]

The definition of "impoverished" is at issue.


There is virtually no material poverty in the nation.

Such is defined as no home, no heat no food.


There is a great deal of social poverty...and it is engendered by Progressive/Liberal/Democrat policy.

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

From Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.

I hate to think you don't know just how many Americans are falling into "your" definition "no home, no heat no food" they grow daily

 

[Freemason9]

1. "Well, there's no "material poverty" (your words, not mine) because of social welfare programs."

You're not the most articulate poster....but that quote seems to mean that you agree with me that there is no material poverty.

Of course, as you have no way to know the the truth re: government programs, you happy to pretend that you can guess same.



2. "Lord knows that incomes and jobs have become insufficient..."
You know no such thing.


Government taxes and regulations make it impossible to know.


3. "Without the welfare economy we have, bridges would be the primary means of shelter for a good portion of our population."
You're a dunce.

What a slander of the American people.

Want me to prove it? Sure: what amount of every 'welfare dollar,' i.e., taken from taxpayers and laundered through the government....
...actually gets to welfare recipients?

I know....do you?
The answer will show the value of the vaunted welfare system.



4. " I don't see this as some vast "liberal" conspiracy thing."
That's because you are....let me repeat.....a dunce.



5. Your use of the word 'infests' with reference to the system may move you out of duncehood status.


6. "There are vast inequalities in terms of opportunity and livelihoods--moreso in the U.S. than in nearly any other industrialized nation. The U.S. is the child of British aristocracy."

OMG.
How do they keep folks like you so ignorant??



a. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

b. The transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income.
W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.

c. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

WTF? You're using 1999 data now?

Jesus. You are thick.

Please.....don't hesitate to show where the premise is incorrect.


Let's review:

a. there is no perennial rich or poor class in America.

b. you're a dunce.

Sorry. I thought the central premise of your initial expose was inequality.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention this (in keeping with the high level of debate in your threads): You're fucked up.