Skip to comments.Why 'Equality' Must Die
Posted on 10/03/2013 6:40:34 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
Take a look at the following list and tell me if anything strikes you:
Prudence Justice Temperance Courage Faith Hope Charity
Viewing these, the Seven Cardinal Virtues, anything make an impression? Okay, now try the Seven Heavenly Virtues of:
Chastity Temperance Charity Diligence Patience Kindness Humility
Anything? What strikes me is that equality is not among them.
Scour great works, such as the Bible, and you won't find talk of equality. Not one bit -- that is, unless you consider The Communist Manifesto a great work.
One thing about virtues -- which are defined as "good moral habits" -- is that their exercise doesn't require the cooperation, or compulsion, of another person. I can cultivate prudence, temperance, courage and the other virtues in myself, and I can do it all by myself. So while a virtuous society is desirable, virtue can also be a purely personal goal. And this is one time when focusing on the self needn't be selfish, for we should take the log out of our own eyes before worrying about the speck in our brother's.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’ve often wondered how there can be equality where there are double standards?
I had a philosophy professor in college who taught ethics and was obsessed with tax policy. He wanted fairness. If the system were fair, and treated people with respect, then who could possibly find fault with it, right? That's why he pushed for steeply progressive tax rates which absolutely screwed the rich bastards, while allowing the poor folks to keep all the money they worked so hard for.
Every class was painful. He just could not see the double standard. All he saw was his own desire for equality.
I wouldn’t really say that is a reference to equality. It’s a reference to fellowship.
“Equality” is a French Revlution ideal and should be discarded.
Equality before God and before the Law are the American standard.
It depends. Equality of opportunity is a good thing. Equality of result (which is what the libs mean when they talk about equality) is not.
The current effort is to change independent people into dependent people. By regulation and indoctrination make us all wards of the state. Dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, we will all be equal.
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” - Aristotle
By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties, in an honest way, and the fruits of his labour, thus acquired, are his own. But, some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labour must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property must be sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there could be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance.
St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States , 1803.
Alrighty then, no equality.
When shall the author start working for me, gratis?
Of course the Bible couldn’t speak much for equality. How could it have justified sexual slavery if it did?
10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”
- Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Please don’t support the bastardization of our heritage. No one, and I mean no one in the Enlightenment era was talking about “equality” of condition -except for some French radicals.
The Equality of which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and writings of 18th century philosphers (Locke, etc.) is in peoples’ treatment by the government, application of law and civil liberties.
Apparently, many people have taken this form equality for granted and no longer appreciate its significance.
Leftists/retards bastardized the meaning of equality in the 19th and 20th centuries to mean equality of condition in order to support communism, progressive taxation and other forms of government control and persecution of citizens.
It happened first during the French Revolution where “equality” was used as a form of social vengeance against the French upper classes. Rather than simply reforming Frcnch civil and legal code “liberty and equality” were used as terror weapons to control society and eventually destroy entire social classes.
This was repeated again in Russia, GE, and many other ‘social revolutions’ where, not so suprisingly, once equality of condition was proclaimed by a government the government’s inequality of treatment of citizens remained.
Demagogues always expound on the equality of condition at the expense of equality of treatment. Exhibit: Obamacare.
Because everyone is already equal in worth before their creator.
Equality today means having as many toys as the next person = see the communist manifesto.
nor shall you treat her as a slave
do you find hard to understand?
Equality and ‘egalitarianism’ are often confused with one another.
There’s a difference!
The article author sure can transcribe fancy words, but he’s too clueless to understand the distinctions between “equality of opportunity”, “equality of result”, “equality before the law”, “equality of status”, etc.
I’m going to have to disagree. However, I think it refers to an equality of status before God, what we would more likely refer to as “equality before the law” were government or society are concerned.
It’s still a far cry from the liberals demand for equality of outcome, though.
I read this author frequently, and I can assure you he isn’t clueless about anything. I would say the article deals with the common modern understanding of equality today.
For libtards, equality is justice, and justice is fairness, and fairness is the elimination of the results of Nature's unfairness.So, any standard or practice that divides men (or creatures in general) into better or worse, winners or losers, must be eliminated. Egalitarians wish to eliminate all injustices by wiping out the concept of "the better."
But egalitarians, like Rawls, believe that consequences of any kind due to their beliefs in equality are not relevant to ethics, which is not a recipe for achieving goals, such as men's happiness For them, ethics is an injunction to obey unconditionally one law: the moral law itself; the principle of equality.
That's precisely what I just said -- the author is starting from a confused definition of his basic term, and so naturally gets lost in the weeds. It's as if he wrote an essay on managing a government budget using "the common modern understanding" of Keynesianism.
Dude, are you pedagogically impotent or is it just an act?
A woman taken captive, forcibly “married” and carnally penetrated is not enduring sexual slavery? LOL.
Don’t let semantics trip you to a fall so easily.
You're applying 21st century morality to the brutal barbarism of 3000 BC. Compared to the common practice of the day, the Torah restrictions were a quantum leap in ethics!
LOL, when did you lose your ability to think logically?
Those are the supposed commandments of a god, not of humans. Unless this god evolves over time, it shouldn’t have “values” more flexible than elastic, wouldn’t you reckon?
I didn't say that God's values changed; merely the era's. God is timeless, but human ideas do evolve over time. You're assuming He commanded women to be forced into marriages. That's your idea, not His.
Whose words are those, in Deut. 21:10-14?
I’ll enjoy making you course through your own pretzel “logic”, as you answer me.
God’s. Have fun.
This funny little deity of yours establishes that mixing milk and meat is an abomination (Exodus 23:19) , but wage war on your neighbours and if you find good-looking eye-candy in their midst, capture those women and have sex with them under the cover of a forced “marriage”, that’s fine and dandy (Deut. 21:10-14).
And don’t work on Saturdays (Exodus 35:2) or you get to die. You’re too uncivilised for THAT!!!
Tell this to yourself in the mirror (really) and let me know if you missed catching a glimpse of the most gullible person you ever knew.
But getting back to the original issue from which you strayed, please point out to me in that passage where force is even implied. By all means attempt to prove to me this was not voluntary.
All I see is compassion and gentleness to the point that she's even allowed to mourn her parents before the marriage, or, as you would have it, "marriage" is consummated.
Compare that to Assyria which marched their prisoners along pulled by hooks attached to their faces.
Destroyed my arguments? LOL, that’s mighty proud of you for presuming, for someone feigning humility in the lack of evidence.
So, a foreign army invades your village, your daughters are captured by them, and taken away, and you want to believe they did this voluntarily, in the face of the death of their parents. They must have amazing personalities for giving themselves sexually to those who slaughtered their parents and took their children as captives. Stockholm syndrome, exemplified, I guess.
Since this is a diktat of your god to do as commanded, it’s okay because hey, look at what the Assyrians are doing! LOL
The “giver” of morality justified by comparison to the lowest common denominator!
The point you’re missing is that if that is the common understanding today, it’s a problem. Also, it was inevitable that what has happened in our country would happen with all the focus on ‘equality.’ The founders didn’t really talk about equality nearly as much as they talked about virtue.
The one thing I would never presume to is justifying God's actions and commands. Not that I don't understand them but He does give this warning about casting pearls before SWINE!
You were posting reply after reply last evening and only now conveniently remembered to quit when your non-arguments got ahead of you. That alone shows who the real fool is.
Thanks for the exchanges, however. It was fun making you attempt to defend the indefensible, and watch you fail pathetically.
When I returned home and saw your silly post, I answered immediately.
The only thing you have going for yourself is that you are so easily amused. When you don't have wisdom you should at least have a sense of humor.
There you go, again.
You imply not to indulge in the exchanges but keep coming back for more, like a living version of the definition of insanity.
I showed how your “ever permanent”, “universal, unchanging morality” god permitted sexual slavery at one point which you pathetically defended by saying they were “morals of the times” and with false moral equivalence by comparing them to the Assyrians. Cornered, you started calling me names.
Then, unable to stay the course regarding the actual argument, you make an excuse for yourself to not indulge further but still keep returning. Insanity is what one would term this behaviour.
What you're incapable of understanding is that the question of the sovereignty of God is not something you can resolve in a messaging board; you won't believe it, but it's bigger than you or, of course, me.
It's sad to think that you actually believe you've shown me anything! The moment you condemned God, you already lost the argument. So, in the spirit of the present discussion:
GET LOST, LOSER!
You first decide to argue your case FOR sexual slavery per Deut. 21:10-14, whilst claiming that a message board is an “insufficient” arena to do so (what more do you need, a miming platform?) , fail at convincing the validity of both claims, say you will cease arguing, yet persist stubbornly in continuing, and now ask me to get lost.
When trying to prove a point, you want (expect) the opposition to believe in it as a precondition so that makes you certifiably insane.
To prove my earlier assertion that understanding the English language is not your strong suit, you have stated the exact opposite of my position; I argued AGAINST sexual slavery, but that discussion no longer interests me. I've already put you in your place on that and I'm not going to cover that ground again.
The subject that I want to explore is your atheist faith; of course, if you wish to deny it's a religion all you need do is prove God does not exist. Have fun with that one.
Atheism was popularized by Enlightenment philosophers for the purpose of mainstreaming homosexuality. A case in point is Friedrich "God is dead" Nietzsche who died insane from tertiary stage of a case of syphilis he acquired in an Italian bath house.
So, whenever I encounter someone culturally related to the Continent or the Empire obsessed about opposing God, my reaction is to think they're either gay or...uh...well...gay.
To avoid getting into a secondary argument, my gentle buddy, I'll immediately clarify that "bi" is "gay." You see, engaging in a second perversion does not cancel out a first perversion.
Have a nice life.
You’re plain nuts.
Re-read my previous comment, better yet, comprehend it, instead of breaking into tangential nonsense.
Your whole point about mentioning the Assyrians was to ameliorate the nasty nonsense that is Deut. 21:10-14. It was a pathetic excuse to legitimise deity-permitted sexual slavery, however it may be termed.
And then you pull out homosexuality out of your Obama for no rational reason.
Like I said, re-read my prior comment and answer coherently instead of going apeshit again.
Oh, and LOL!
Go pound sand, queer!
(I’m shaking in me boots!)
Silly faggot; dicks are for chicks.
"Context" is the magic word here. This character does have a type of logic but removed from the necessary historical context it can only lead to irrational conclusions.
Regardless, there's no way to inject wisdom into a mind that begins the journey by rejecting God and His laws.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Don't condone sexual slavery, which is what the above is, regardless of what lousy excuse-making you use to make your dogma seem virtuous.
A woman in mourning forced to have sex sanctioned by a god is a woman who is undergoing rape. It's hilarious to see you make it out to be a minor act of little consequence with your reference to the "option" she has of walking away "humbly" after being used sexually, to leave her rapist looking bad in bed. The times back then weren't that kind to women to allow your putrid views to be applicable to them. The women get marked, because they are no longer virgins. It's funny that a god that can order ridiculous dietary and cultural practices to its people and expect obedience at the threat of death had to make allowances to permit sexual slavery because it was still "civilising" its people. Yeah, right. Sell this swill elsewhere.