Fe politics versus Fi politics

[Magic Poriferan]

Hah! Of course freedom and equality oppose each other.
Look, in order to create a perfectly even(equal) wealth distribution in this country, a large number of regulations would be required(regulations that inherently invade on your freedoms).

On the other hand, if we make no effort to maintain equality against individual will, then what will immediately begin is a predatory, Darwinian game in which winners crush losers, and the sly horde riches stolen from the naive.
Not very equal.

There's a silly joke that demonstrates how freedom and equality oppose each other. At HomestarRunner.com, there was a clip in which Marzipan was teaching a kindergarten class, and she only gave her students crayons that couldn't write, reasoning that it would prevent any one student from artistically outshining the others.
Do you see how this absurd situation examplifies my point?
The freedom to pursue anything better or do anything greater than anyone else automatically creates inequality.

Justice is seperate, too, because it encrouages the idea the people should be forcably punished or rewarded on merrits. This idea conflicts with both freedom and equality.

 

[Mr Galt]

Hah! Of course freedom and equality oppose each other.
Look, in order to create a perfectly even(equal) wealth distribution in this country, a large number of regulations would be required(regulations that inherently invade on your freedoms).

On the other hand, if we make no effort to maintain equality against individual will, then what will immediately begin is a predatory, Darwinian game in which winners crush losers, and the sly horde riches stolen from the naive.
Not very equal.

There's a silly joke that demonstrates how freedom and equality oppose each other. At HomestarRunner.com, there was a clip in which Marzipan was teaching a kindergarten class, and she only gave her students crayons that couldn't write, reasoning that it would prevent any one student from artistically outshining the others.
Do you see how this absurd situation examplifies my point?
The freedom to pursue anything better or do anything greater than anyone else automatically creates inequality.

Justice is seperate, too, because it encrouages the idea the people should be forcably punished or rewarded on merrits. This idea conflicts with both freedom and equality.

What you are describing is not equality. It's stacking the deck. And please stop spelling merit with two r's. It's killing my soul. And exemplifies has no a.

 

[SillySapienne]

There's a silly joke that demonstrates how freedom and equality oppose each other. At HomestarRunner.com, there was a clip in which Marzipan was teaching a kindergarten class, and she only gave her students crayons that couldn't write, reasoning that it would prevent any one student from artistically outshining the others.
Do you see how this absurd situation examplifies my point?
The freedom to pursue anything better or do anything greater than anyone else automatically creates inequality.
.

True, and your point?!?!?

 

[elfinchilde]

From what I am seeing here, you have no opinion but a large collection of facts.

my opinion has been more than clearly stated. Excuse me if you're unable to see subtlety, nor dual perspectives, nor use facts to bolster what is essentially a rational argument.

In a debate, one engages only those capable of solid repartee. I perceive I'm wasting my time with a child who only knows his own emotive perception of what he is arguing about. Time out, then.

Final post here.

 

[SillySapienne]

And please stop spelling merit with two r's. It's killing my soul. And exemplifies has no a.

Galt, your writing has been less than perfect as well, so please refrain from being a spelling nazi!!! (After all, it hurts my soul)

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What you are describing is not equality. It's stacking the deck. And please stop spelling merit with two r's. It's killing my soul. And exemplifies has no a.

Yes, yes it is, It's equality. Things are equal, therefore, it's equality.
And I'm sure I spelled some things wrong, I typed fast and didn't spell-check.
I couldn't remember if merit was supposed to have one or two Ts.
What relevance is this? If you're letting my minor spelling errors get to you then I think you're falling apart.

True, and your point?!?!?

Well, he asked how the two conflicted, so I explained.

 

[Mr Galt]

Yes, yes it is, It's equality. Things are equal, therefore, it's equality.
And I'm sure I spelled some things wrong, I typed fast and didn't spell-check.
I couldn't remember if merit was supposed to have one or two Ts.
What relevance is this? If you're letting my minor spelling errors get to you then I think you're falling apart.

Where does that come from? I just want you to stop spelling merit like that...

As far as intervening to make all results the same, that is not equality. Some are being given more or less by the system intentionally to balance results out.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Don't you realize that it's signifigantly easier to function in a cooperative society than to have to watch your back at every turn and get your own food and not to know who to trust when things go wrong?

I'm going to have to second her on this. Most humans act mostly obedient to societal demands because, on a pragmatic level, it provides better living conditions to do so.

Life without these agreements is far too chaotic. Humans need stability and security for growth.
People will always prefer to live under the foot of a stationary bandit than be left worrying about the whims of roving bandits.

 

[SillySapienne]

Inequality is not the same thing as injustice.

Oranges are not apples, five is not four, etc., but there is nothing inherently unjust about their differences, i.e. their being inherently "unequal".

Freedom seeks to abolish injustice, *not* inequality.

It is okay that some people are smarter, taller, prettier, or wealthier than others, however it is *not* okay to force a pretty girl to don ugly clothes and make-up just so the "uglier" girls will feel better about themselves, nope..that would be grossly unjust!!

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

^
Big ups to CC. Equality is about a fair playing field, not about everyone winning.

 

[pure_mercury]

Inequality is not the same thing as injustice.

Oranges are not apples, five is not four, etc., but there is nothing inherently unjust about there differences, i.e. their being inherently "unequal".

Freedom seeks to abolish injustice, *not* inequality.

It is okay that some people are smarter, taller, prettier, or wealthier than others, however it is *not* okay to force a pretty girl to don ugly clothes and make-up just so the "uglier" girls will feel better about themselves, nope..that would be grossly unjust!!

I agree wholeheartedly. People are unequal in natural talents and acquired skills, and some pursuits are awarded with more due to the scarcity problem.

 

[SillySapienne]

It's not all about equal opportunity, sometimes it is about equal guarantees.

For that reason, I take equality to be the equality of what is, not of what potentially could be.

But what is will *never* be equal. Do you not realize that human beings are living things that compete for limited resources.

Competition exists, and there is no amount of denying or "restructuring" that can change this fact!!!

*confused*

Your definition of equality seems more akin to a stifling enslavement to me.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

But what is will *never* be equal. Do you not realize that human beings are living things that compete for limited resources.

Competition exists, and there is no amount of denying or "restructuring" that can change this fact!!!

*confused*

Your definition of equality seems more like a stifling enslavement to me.

It is. It looks like I need to clear something up.
I do not advocate total equality. Such a thing is essentially hive-minded fascism, and not really possible. In comparison, the ultimate freedom model is total anarchy, and I think justice(as I defined it) is best represented by Communism, because it assigns based on needs and abilities.

I was not advocating any of these points, but rather, using them for their extreme nature. I was trying to define the furthest most corners of my triangular contiuum. By giving you the most extreme(and therefore most simplistic) forms, I intended to lay-out the lowest possible descriptions of freedom, justice, and equality in society, and how they conflict, so that I could build my logical point up from there.

Ahem... Perhaps my plans were a bit epic for the length of this topic.

 

[heart]

Please redirect all further debate on this topic to private messaging with me. If you think it is important enough to be public, then make a different thread. This thread is not about age of consent. It is about broad spectrum political systems. Thank you.

You are the one who opened the topic up, publicly in this thread. Don't tell me what I may and may not do to discuss it. You may chose not to respond but you have no place telling me how to react to it. Thank you.

If the moderators feel it has veered off too far from the topic, they will split it off.

 

[miss fortune]

And children aren't old enough to give consent- they don't know what they are doing- that was a rather horrible comment of you to make. It's like saying "she was drunk, she was asking for it" which is NOT the case!

Telling me that children are incapable of making decisions for themselves (even about sex) is probably the easiest way to make me angry. For that matter, saying anybody is incapable of such a thing. To deny them that is to deny them their humanity. If you choose to do something, you consented to doing it. If you were forced, that voids it. Nothing else does. Ignorance doesn't count.

Where you got yourself into trouble- do you not realize that there are situations other than being physically forced that are considered rape? They have just as disasterous of a psychological effect.

That one comment is absolutley horrible :sad:

 

[Nocapszy]

Wow. So you just dismiss any sort of study of child development and what people are capable of in so far as judgement at different ages?

Whatever studies have shown were probably reported in err.

True the frontal lobe -- that part of the organ responsible for informed rational acumen is underdeveloped, however decision making in and of itself is by no means hindered by age.

 

[Mr Galt]

You are the one who opened the topic up, publicly in this thread. Don't tell me what I may and may not do to discuss it. You may chose not to respond but you have no place telling me how to react to it. Thank you.

If the moderators feel it has veered off too far from the topic, they will split it off. It is not up to you.

I may suggest that you do something. I am not forcing you.

As to the real topic of this thread...

So you say, but not everyone does. As you can see, many thinkers have decided to try and enforce or guide equal living standards. It's not all about equal opportunity, sometimes it is about equal guarantees.

For that reason, I take equality to be the equality of what is, not of what potentially could be.

The only guarantee in life is death, so we already have equal guarantees. Yes, this is rather clich

 

[Nocapszy]

You really don't know how disasterous the effects of such a thing can have do you? The idea that someone who is not in thier top mental capacity can make such a life altering decision is ludicrous! I really can't beleive that you said that- I would have thought that even you might have the common sense and compassion not to rationalize pedophilia and rape

This is lawlable.

I know kids who make more socially appropriate decisions and psychologically "non-damaging" decisions and make those decisions quicker than some adults.

You're really arguing that by age 18 everyone is capable of this; and that everyone who's not met that benchmark is inversely capable of the same?

And he didn't rationalize rape. He said explicitly that it's not the same as pedophilia. The police rule it under the same category, but it's really not even close.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

As to the real topic of this thread...


The only guarantee in life is death, so we already have equal guarantees. Yes, this is rather clich

I think you might agree that very much of society and the desires of its people are built around the avoidance of death. That's what security and sustenance are all about.
So we're working within the bounds of life alone. Society aims to create guarantees other then death. In fact, many people feel like society should guarantee them an escape from death, hence the debate about the "right to health-care" going on in this country right now.

 

[miss fortune]

This is lawlable.

I know kids who make more socially appropriate decisions and psychologically "non-damaging" decisions and make those decisions quicker than some adults.

You're really arguing that by age 18 everyone is capable of this; and that everyone who's not met that benchmark is inversely capable of the same?

And he didn't rationalize rape. He said explicitly that it's not the same as pedophilia. The police rule it under the same category, but it's really not even close.

There's other situations that it could apply to other than just young age for instance, inebriation, or mental deficiency