Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

CJ7 · 07-04-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Nope, you can twist the term "equality" any way you want;l it doe not make me anymore wrong than your view of equality.
That is the problem with people like yourself, you only want to see things in a very narrow context when it comes to another opinion, but in a very wide context when it is your opinion. That is unless you are picking for a needle to suit your interpretation.

\It is like discrimination. Discrimination is what has enabled the human to survive yet depending on how you choose to view it, it is bad thing. Discrimination is a learning process that is developed from the time we are infants. It is the process of learning how to choose what is best for you. This carries on to business and the desire to hire the best person for the work to be done.
Now we are told that making the best choice regardless of race3, sex, etc. can be considered discrimination because you did not hire this person or that person based on a perceived notion that it was motivated by anything other than the best fit for the job.

Let me say I am interviewing two candidates for a job that requires a person to interact with people in a sales role.
The first applicant is a tall young white male. He interviews wearing a pair of polished shoes, dress slacks that are neatly pressed, a belt, a long sleeved shirt with a time, his hair is neat and he is well mannered. The other applicant is black young man. He is wearing some air jordans that are loosely laced, his jeans are bagging and barely cover his ass, he has on a muscle shirt with some sort of gang looking writing on it, chansons hanging from around his neck, he has a few tats and some piercings and his hair is all out of sorts. He speaks an urban lingo that sounds a bit ghetto.
Which one would I hire?

LOL

ok then .............................. .............................. ........

icuminpeace · 07-04-2012, 07:10 PM

That is the most ridiculous example you could've come up with.

icuminpeace · 07-04-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Talking about hiring practices you forgot about the employer. If a 30 something man who is equally qualified as a 30 something woman approaches you for a job. You know traditionally that if you offer her 30 dollar an hour she will probably take it but you will have to offer the man 32 dollar an hour. Should you be forced to offer them both the same? Doesn't the business owner have the right to get the same quality skills for a lesser price?

So in your opinion, a woman perfectly capable of doing the same job should earn less because you can take advantage of the situation? Why don't you offer them both $30 an hour, as a business owner you can save money regardless of who you hire and you will have offered two perfectly capable people the same opportunity. This is the kind of mentality that results in laws like affirmative action and then we complain about the government telling businesses how to behave.

Next time you'll tell us that the women's role is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, lol!

CuteOldGuy · 07-04-2012, 07:28 PM

We won't achieve pay equality by government mandate. Each person has their own sense of what they are worth. Each employer has an idea what they are willing to pay. Let them work it out. Government mandates simply insure that everyone will be paid less.

JD Barleycorn · 07-04-2012, 08:23 PM

Actually I thought that freedom was universal. Don't you? If a prospective employee or the employer can strike a better deal then you are against in favor of the employee? That doesn't sound too universal. If I walk in with good qualifications and am willing to work for $30 an hour and the employer fears that he (or she) may have to pay $40 an hour to get someone of my quality then they are supposed to tell me this. Or if we narrow it down to $32 an hour and another person (black, white, brown, male, female, etc) says that they are willing to do the job for $28 an hour then the employer is required to tell them that they have to pay them $32 an hour? Freedom has to go both ways or it is not really freedom for all.

Guest040616 · 07-04-2012, 08:28 PM

The Pledge of Allegiance only references "liberty and justice for all." I believe this discussion should not revolve around equality, unless the word (equality) is used as an arbitrary substitute to the phrase "justice for all."

CuteOldGuy · 07-04-2012, 09:08 PM

The Pledge of Allegiance is very clear. It is also irrelevant to this discussion. But it is clear, no doubt about that.

cowboy8055 · 07-04-2012, 11:50 PM

Well as of now only one person in this poll had chosen equality over liberty. It should be obvious that so-called equality without liberty isn't much to boast about. The problem with arguing about equality is that many liberals equate it with equal outcomes. I'm all for everyone having an equal fair shot at achieving their dreams but guaranteeing equal results is simply not realistic. Not everyone has the same abilities. Not everyone can be a doctor or world class athlete. To ensure equal outcomes you would necessarily have to wrongfully elevate some while suppressing others. Not a lot of liberty in that.

JD Barleycorn · 07-04-2012, 11:57 PM

I thought about it on the way to the fireworks and here it is boys and girls. My fault is that I think of everyone as individuals and some others think of people as special interest groups. They thing that all women should get the equal pay that men do while I think that each person should cut their own best deal. I am sure that some men will give in way too soon and like Ellen Barkin in the movie "Switch" she will get the job because she knows the business, the people, the facts, and that she gives the interviewer a great big hard on.

WTF · 07-05-2012, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

...that it is equally important for all to have Liberty. Without equality in this regard, there is no true Liberty for anyone in society.

Did blacks have Liberty in 1850?
Did women?

Not one single person has true Liberty if there is one single person in society denied equality of Liberty. The gays are todays blacks and women of yesteryear...

Picking which is more important is like picking between the H2 and O in water. Senseless without both.

I will repeat it. There is no water without both H and O.

Arguing one over the other segregates us into groups. It is not a either/or. We can have both, in fact we must have both for there to be a just and moral society.

CuteOldGuy · 07-05-2012, 12:14 AM

Are you talking equality before the law, or equality in outcome, WTF?

WTF · 07-05-2012, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are you talking equality before the law, or equality in outcome, WTF?

What I have written is very easy to understand.

You Ann Rand Loons are the only ones making up this crap about equality in outcome.

Women should be able to vote, blacks should be free, Gays should be able to marry. Equal Liberty for all. What one does with it is up to them. If you want to become rich, then by all means do so.

Whirlaway · 07-05-2012, 06:22 AM

I am very suprised at the vote count - overwhelming support for Liberty and almost zero support for equality.

It makes me think that the lefties on this board are either dishonest or dumb.

Do they really support big government agendas thinking they are supporting liberty ? (Dumb).

Do they think supporting Obamacare is standing up for liberty ? (Dumber).

I suspect they are "soft" supporters of liberty; it gives them the false cover of patriotism (false connection with the founding principles) that the left is compelled to keep if they hope to succeed in their deception and lies; as they rewrite our Constitution and lay waste the Republic. (Dishonest).

Guest040616 · 07-05-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I am very suprised at the vote count - overwhelming support for Liberty and almost zero support for equality.

It makes me think that the lefties on this board are either dishonest or dumb.

Do they really support big government agendas thinking they are supporting liberty ? (Dumb).

Do they think supporting Obamacare is standing up for liberty ? (Dumber).

I suspect they are "soft" supporters of liberty; it gives them the false cover of patriotism (false connection with the founding principles) that the left is compelled to keep if they hope to succeed in their deception and lies; as they rewrite our Constitution and lay waste the Republic. (Dishonest).

I followed (but did not necessarily agree with) the above referenced post until you went on the ridiculous patriotism rant. Are you really so ignorant and/or brainwashed that you mistakenly believe that unless a person shares your extreme right wing-nut philosophy than they cannot share your patriotism?

Give me a friggin' break! You mentioned the word "Dishonest." The entire patriotism rant was about as "Dishonest" as it could possibly be!

CuteOldGuy · 07-05-2012, 07:12 AM

BigTurd, how can one be considered a"patriot" when that person opposes the core principles on which this country was founded? You support a big government, statist system which is antithetical to freedom. And you're a patriot? Not according to Thomas Paine.

The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government. - Thomas Paine