Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on Jun 1, 2024 21:11:44 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 equalityBut no one has so posted. It's excessive inequality that several of us have said is an issue
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 2, 2024 7:19:11 GMT
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? I never suggested your (or Steve's) views entailed anything outside economic equality. You are flying a bit of a strawman here Let's stick to economic equality - if you are against economic inequality, you are in favour of economic equality. If economic inequality (in itself) is always the problem., the solution is always to take control of resources and force equality (communism?)
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 2, 2024 7:30:16 GMT
Being against inequality (itself) does logically imply that you are for equalityBut no one has so posted. It's excessive inequality that several of us have said is an issue Steve, This part of the conversation started with this exchange between us - Orac Wrote - "It wasn't inequality that caused the French revolution, it was oppression and unfairness"Steve Replied "Aka inequality"You implied here that Inequality itself is unfair and oppressive (the same thing as oppression and unfairness) You also later implied that it wouldn't be just a communist who held this view, but anyone with good sense. Adding the word 'excessive' here doesn't help much, because it leaves it up to those in power to decide which 'inequalities' are excessive and what should be done to stop them.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on Jun 2, 2024 8:30:04 GMT
But no one has so posted. It's excessive inequality that several of us have said is an issue Steve, This part of the conversation started with this exchange between us - Orac Wrote - "It wasn't inequality that caused the French revolution, it was oppression and unfairness"Steve Replied "Aka inequality"You implied here that Inequality itself is unfair and oppressive (the same thing as oppression and unfairness) You also later implied that it wouldn't be just a communist who held this view, but anyone with good sense. Adding the word 'excessive' here doesn't help much, because it leaves it up to those in power to decide which 'inequalities' are excessive and what should be done to stop them. No you're adding 2 and 2 and making 22 Just because all 'oppression and unfairness' is 'inequality' does not mean that all 'inequality' is 'oppression and unfairness' any more than 'all cats have fur does not mean that all furry animals are cats. I really suggest you read again the original point made which clearly was about what happens when you have excessive inequality Another phantom. The inequalities themselves aren't the problem. The problem is the rich's ability to purchase an abusive power over the poor that can't be competed away Nope You want people to obediently pay taxes while living a lifestylefar far removed from the squillionaires whose lives are thrust into their faces everyday then expect many to refuse not just to pay but also to obey the laws we all rely on to have a decent society. We're not in French Revolution levels of wealth inequality societal stress just yet but every year we nudge a little closer.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 2, 2024 20:11:26 GMT
Only 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? I never suggested your (or Steve's) views entailed anything outside economic equality. You are flying a bit of a strawman here Let's stick to economic equality - if you are against economic inequality, you are in favour of economic equality. If economic inequality (in itself) is always the problem., the solution is always to take control of resources and force equality (communism?)You made it economic equality we didn't. I spoke of equality under the law and equality of services. You made that into communism because your only argument is absurdium. So for clarity (Again) no one wants absolute economic equality, just relative economic equality
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 3, 2024 10:20:40 GMT
Steve, This part of the conversation started with this exchange between us - Orac Wrote - "It wasn't inequality that caused the French revolution, it was oppression and unfairness"Steve Replied "Aka inequality"You implied here that Inequality itself is unfair and oppressive (the same thing as oppression and unfairness) You also later implied that it wouldn't be just a communist who held this view, but anyone with good sense. Adding the word 'excessive' here doesn't help much, because it leaves it up to those in power to decide which 'inequalities' are excessive and what should be done to stop them. No you're adding 2 and 2 and making 22 Just because all 'oppression and unfairness' is 'inequality' does not mean that all 'inequality' is 'oppression and unfairness' any more than 'all cats have fur does not mean that all furry animals are cats. I really suggest you read again the original point made which clearly was about what happens when you have excessive inequality Nope You want people to obediently pay taxes while living a lifestylefar far removed from the squillionaires whose lives are thrust into their faces everyday then expect many to refuse not just to pay but also to obey the laws we all rely on to have a decent society. We're not in French Revolution levels of wealth inequality societal stress just yet but every year we nudge a little closer. So, Steve, you agree with me that an unequal society can be fair?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 3, 2024 10:25:46 GMT
I never suggested your (or Steve's) views entailed anything outside economic equality. You are flying a bit of a strawman here Let's stick to economic equality - if you are against economic inequality, you are in favour of economic equality. If economic inequality (in itself) is always the problem., the solution is always to take control of resources and force equality (communism?)You made it economic equality we didn't. I spoke of equality under the law and equality of services. You made that into communism because your only argument is absurdium. So for clarity (Again) no one wants absolute economic equality, just relative economic equality You jumped into a conversation about economic inequality (Steve's point about the UK) and so, if you shift to something else, you will need to leave me more clues than you did,. The vagueness of the concept 'inequality' allows people to avoid a head on confrontation. They can tal;k nonsense and pretend they are saying something else when confronted. I'm not suggesting you did this, just alerting you to the danger. The same things happens with 'equal opportunities' - another nearly meaninglessly vague concept.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 11:46:27 GMT
No you're adding 2 and 2 and making 22 Just because all 'oppression and unfairness' is 'inequality' does not mean that all 'inequality' is 'oppression and unfairness' any more than 'all cats have fur does not mean that all furry animals are cats. I really suggest you read again the original point made which clearly was about what happens when you have excessive inequality So, Steve, you agree with me that an unequal society can be fair? I never said otherwise. But a very unequal society can be very unfair and as per the actual point I made, very unstable.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 3, 2024 15:22:13 GMT
So, Steve, you agree with me that an unequal society can be fair? But a very unequal society can be very unfair and as per the actual point I made, very unstable. But not unfair because it is unequal - you just, after all, agreed that inequality and unfairness were separate
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 18:11:16 GMT
But a very unequal society can be very unfair and as per the actual point I made, very unstable. But not unfair because it is unequal - you just, after all, agreed that inequality and unfairness were separate This feels like an LSD trip. Inequality and unfairness can be the same thing, but not all inequality is unfair. As described in the original premise there is a tipping point beyond which inequality is considered unfair. Its not an exact science measured with a slide rule, but history tells us it does exist. The imply the only alternative to less economic inequality is Communism is IMO a deliberate attempt to make equality sound bad.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 3, 2024 18:34:08 GMT
But not unfair because it is unequal - you just, after all, agreed that inequality and unfairness were separate This feels like an LSD trip. Inequality and unfairness can be the same thing, but not all inequality is unfair. If you think that inequality itself is unfair, then you are 'going back' to the position i said you had several posts ago and that you claimed was a straw-man
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 19:15:01 GMT
This feels like an LSD trip. Inequality and unfairness can be the same thing, but not all inequality is unfair. If you think that inequality itself is unfair, then you are 'going back' to the position i said you had several posts ago and that you claimed was a straw-man I give up. You are deaf.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 19:18:02 GMT
But not unfair because it is unequal - you just, after all, agreed that inequality and unfairness were separate This feels like an LSD trip. Inequality and unfairness can be the same thing, but not all inequality is unfair. As described in the original premise there is a tipping point beyond which inequality is considered unfair. Its not an exact science measured with a slide rule, but history tells us it does exist. The imply the only alternative to less economic inequality is Communism is IMO a deliberate attempt to make equality sound bad. seconded. Why someone is obsessed with trying to twist our words for false effect is at best puzzling
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 3, 2024 20:17:48 GMT
Having read the last three pages of this thread three times, I can't help having visions of angels dancing on a pin head.
How about a small amendment to Mag's -
The inequalities themselves aren't the problem. The problem is the rich's ability to purchase an abusive power over the poor that can't be competed away.
(which I thought was very good)
To -
The inequalities themselves aren't necessarily the problem. The problem is the rich's ability to purchase/legislate an abusive power over the poor that can't be competed away making the inequalities unfair.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 20:26:06 GMT
Having read the last three pages of this thread three times, I can't help having visions of angels dancing on a pin head.
How about a small amendment to Mag's -
The inequalities themselves aren't the problem. The problem is the rich's ability to purchase an abusive power over the poor that can't be competed away.
(which I thought was very good)
To -
The inequalities themselves aren't necessarily the problem. The problem is the rich's ability to purchase/legislate an abusive power over the poor that can't be competed away making the inequalities unfair.
That's the cause of inequality. Doesn't change the result.
|
|