|
Post by Zany on May 25, 2024 12:15:28 GMT
The French revolution most certainly did happen because of inequality. Napoleon happened because those who got rid of the Monarchy had no idea how to run a country. But here, you are engaging in an accidental straw man of my position. I'm not saying the inequality is always fair. What is clear is that popular sentiment in France was not that interested in making everyone equal (in the modern sense) If you look at what happened the the wake of the revolution, it's clear that leadership competence was the principle gripe. Napoleon was competent and gave France victories, the aristos were self absorbed perverts who lost territories and engaged in petty tyranny. I think its your misunderstanding of equality. Equality of law, opportunity and education were prime in the French revolution. Equality is not communism. Sure Napoleon was competent. But his competence allowed him to stop the corruption that was creeping in among those who took power from the Monarchy. The fact he wanted that corruption stopped and understood the damage it did were why he was popular.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on May 25, 2024 12:43:28 GMT
I think Orac mistook concern about increasing levels of inequality as being an absurd demand for equality. It wasn't
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 25, 2024 14:40:01 GMT
I think Orac mistook concern about increasing levels of inequality as being an absurd demand for equality. It wasn't There's a very good reason why century by century the rich and powerful have given up more of that power. Absolute power is unsustainable, fairness is a prime human instinct, even visible among apes. If absolute power was the answer Lions would rule the earth instead of Apes.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 29, 2024 8:38:41 GMT
But here, you are engaging in an accidental straw man of my position. I'm not saying the inequality is always fair. What is clear is that popular sentiment in France was not that interested in making everyone equal (in the modern sense) If you look at what happened the the wake of the revolution, it's clear that leadership competence was the principle gripe. Napoleon was competent and gave France victories, the aristos were self absorbed perverts who lost territories and engaged in petty tyranny. I think its your misunderstanding of equality. Equality of law, opportunity and education were prime in the French revolution. Equality is not communism. Sure Napoleon was competent. But his competence allowed him to stop the corruption that was creeping in among those who took power from the Monarchy. The fact he wanted that corruption stopped and understood the damage it did were why he was popular. In fact, I would class corruption is a form of incompetence. Corruption presents itself as incompetent leadership, doing all the wrong things for inexplicable reasons. We have a large dose of this presently in the UK, Europe and the US. The reason i raised inequality is this - the 'inequality' argument is often lazily presented by the left because if inequality is always the problem. then communism is the answer. Unfair inequality is caused by unfairness - it is not really an issue in itself
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 29, 2024 19:51:43 GMT
I think its your misunderstanding of equality. Equality of law, opportunity and education were prime in the French revolution. Equality is not communism. Sure Napoleon was competent. But his competence allowed him to stop the corruption that was creeping in among those who took power from the Monarchy. The fact he wanted that corruption stopped and understood the damage it did were why he was popular. In fact, I would class corruption is a form of incompetence. Corruption presents itself as incompetent leadership, doing all the wrong things for inexplicable reasons. We have a large dose of this presently in the UK, Europe and the US. The reason i raised inequality is this - the 'inequality' argument is often lazily presented by the left because if inequality is always the problem. then communism is the answer. Unfair inequality is caused by unfairness - it is not really an issue in itself Until you can accept that being against inequality does not mean you want equality in everything, then the conversation cannot progress.
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on May 31, 2024 17:45:48 GMT
I think Orac mistook concern about increasing levels of inequality as being an absurd demand for equality. It wasn't There's a very good reason why century by century the rich and powerful have given up more of that power. Absolute power is unsustainable, fairness is a prime human instinct, even visible among apes. If absolute power was the answer Lions would rule the earth instead of Apes. Not without opposable thumbs they wouldn't. Once apes invented the spear dominance was assured.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 31, 2024 19:54:23 GMT
There's a very good reason why century by century the rich and powerful have given up more of that power. Absolute power is unsustainable, fairness is a prime human instinct, even visible among apes. If absolute power was the answer Lions would rule the earth instead of Apes. Not without opposable thumbs they wouldn't. Once apes invented the spear dominance was assured. Ah! that would have been invented by one of John of Nory's ancestors, then.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 31, 2024 21:04:45 GMT
There's a very good reason why century by century the rich and powerful have given up more of that power. Absolute power is unsustainable, fairness is a prime human instinct, even visible among apes. If absolute power was the answer Lions would rule the earth instead of Apes. Not without opposable thumbs they wouldn't. Once apes invented the spear dominance was assured. You watch a group of apes. Its cooperation that counts
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on May 31, 2024 21:27:43 GMT
Not without opposable thumbs they wouldn't. Once apes invented the spear dominance was assured. You watch a group of apes. Its cooperation that counts Lots of animals cooperate, including lions. The ability to pick up a weapon is the real force multiplier.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 31, 2024 22:12:08 GMT
You watch a group of apes. Its cooperation that counts Lots of animals cooperate, including lions. The ability to pick up a weapon is the real force multiplier. But lions don't look after their weakest or share the spoils. www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on May 31, 2024 22:18:36 GMT
Lots of animals cooperate, including lions. The ability to pick up a weapon is the real force multiplier. But lions don't look after their weakest or share the spoils. www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCgOf course they do. They hunt in packs and share the prey.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 1, 2024 6:35:10 GMT
Of course they do. They hunt in packs and share the prey. They females hunt and the alpha male takes first dibs at the kill. Do you think apes could have progressed without cooperation? Baboons don't have spears but the lions rarely attack them because a Baboon pack will risk its lives to rescue a single member. If a lion sees a single baboon it will definitely try to kill it. I do not believe apes could have become the super predator by thumbs alone.
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jun 1, 2024 10:56:44 GMT
Not without opposable thumbs they wouldn't. Once apes invented the spear dominance was assured. Ah! that would have been invented by one of John of Nory's ancestors, then. Been trying to work this one out but I'm going to have to face the fact that it went over my head.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 1, 2024 17:44:03 GMT
In fact, I would class corruption is a form of incompetence. Corruption presents itself as incompetent leadership, doing all the wrong things for inexplicable reasons. We have a large dose of this presently in the UK, Europe and the US. The reason i raised inequality is this - the 'inequality' argument is often lazily presented by the left because if inequality is always the problem. then communism is the answer. Unfair inequality is caused by unfairness - it is not really an issue in itself Until you can accept that being against inequality does not mean you want equality in everything, then the conversation cannot progress. Being against inequality (itself) does logically imply that you are for equality
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 1, 2024 20:24:47 GMT
Until you can accept that being against inequality does not mean you want equality in everything, then the conversation cannot progress. Being against inequality (itself) does logically imply that you are for equalityOnly if you take the word literally. Wanting equality does not imply you want everyone to be the same height and weight. Or do you think it does?
|
|