It's no secret that liberals are obsessed with equality. This seems to be the underlying theme in everything they do. Not that there is anything wrong with basic equality, but many of them take it to unhealthy extremes. Such as demanding equal outcome rather than simply being able to accept equal opportunity. And I've noticed something. A lot of them seem to struggle with being able to differentiate between the idea of equal in value and identical in design. What do I mean? Well, two five dollar bills and a ten dollar bill are equal in value, but they are not the same thing. It is the same with other things in the social sphere. Men and women for instance. There is little argument that men and women are equal in value as established by nature. Because both are necessary to keep the species going. Neither one was designed to reproduce by itself. But just because they are equal, this does not make them the same. In fact, it is precisely their differences that make them both necessary. I have no problem in a free society with people being able to pursue whatever career path that they desire. But it's important to acknowledge that equal opportunity is not going to lead to equal outcome. Because equality is a relatively man-made concept. It is not something that happens very often in nature. Thus certain people are going to be more prone to excelling at some fields than others. So then we get people like Gloria Allred getting upset because there are more male than female firefighters since they are stronger and more able to carry people out of burning buildings, and she demands "equal representation" using the downright laughable rationalization (I kid you not, this was her argument) that "it's probably better for people to be dragged on the ground by their ankles anyway so they won't breathe as much smoke." This is clearly a problem. It illustrates a fundamental lack of either comprehension or acceptance of the fact that equal in value does not translate to same in design or function. So it begs the question. Can liberals tell the difference? Clearly they're not all as silly as Gloria Allred, but I do think a lot of them are often guilty of trying to force a square peg into a round hole, intent on convincing themselves that they are the same shape. What say you? Agree? Disagree?
I agree that liberals go too far in their equality stance. There is certainly a difference between equal opportunity and forced equality. For them to look at something, like firefighters in your example, and say there is issue because group X is not well represented is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). They need to look at the cause, not the statistics, and if the cause is blatantly set against a group, without just cause, then argue that point.
I am convinced that liberals are people who have a psychological need to control others because of their own feelings of inadequacy.
To be fair same can be said of conservatives. Still, I don't disagree; it's blatantly obvious that some of them have severe personal issues that they are taking out on us all for no real reason. That or it's a misguided attempt to garner votes (same with the right).
eh, in some cases yeah, but in general I think it's just a term that they think sounds good and so hijacked a long time ago. Whenever you see someone with an "=" bumper sticker or pin, ask them about their position on incest and polygamy. The vast majority I've spoken to immediately say no to both, and always have this oh so rational opinion that, "no, we shouldn't let relatives marry because of birth defects." Please, please, please, try this. It's so FUN to see people say that, then ask them, "so - gay marriage was first legalized in the US in MA in 2004. Do you think gays didn't have sex before 2004?" Liberals take a word they think sounds good, grab it, and then just try to attach it to themselves. Equality is just one example.
No conservative wants true equality of opportunity, and quite rightly. True equality of opportunity demands absolute public education, a large (or complete) estate tax, and the such. Equality is one of those things that no one wants to be against. I think instead people should find equality in the absence of the initiation of force against them, by governments, corporations, individuals, anyone. Equality seems intuitively right because inequality summons images of theft and forced redistribution. I am against this, but not against the natural inequality voluntarily created in the free market.
Equal opportunity does not exist, and Republicans do everything they can to ensure that nothing even close to that ideal ever will.
Well Unifier isnt it a bit insulting of you to expect us to take on board some stupid woman's argument? Lets be clear, no liberal here will. Indeed humans are equally valued, they are not equally born, in many varied ways. The liberal aim is correct this as much as possible, such that peoples deficiencies do not necessaily mean a lesser outcome for them in their lives. Thus the poor are fed, housed, educated and so on. In this way, they can move out of poverty more easily depending on their desires. Its a pretty clear cut choice, for if we instead feel we must respect the cards nature has dealt them we will instead end up with generations of people living off rubbish tips as we have all across South America. - - - Updated - - - Is there something wrong with giving every child the exact same educational opportunity?
There are humans who, despite being born with the same potential ability, will end up with drastically different results not because of choices they've made, but because of factors they cannot control, such as parental influence, lack of educational opportunity, and external community factors.
You spend an inordinate amount of time fantasizing about "liberals" and pretending to ask questions for which you supply your self-serving answers. Where you are alienated from most Americans, you manufacture your "liberal" straw men. Yes, Americans hold "equality" especially dear. The United States was born with a Declaration of Independence that proclaimed, as a self-evident truth, that, all Men are created equal." The Founding Fathers did not mean to suggest that humans are cloned and indistinguishable from one another when they set a moral principle for equal respect for personhood in the form of equal treatment under law. Over the years, that legal equality has expanded to include those formerly excluded based upon race, gender - that progress toward the Founders' ideal always vehemently opposed by conservatives who bemoaned such inclusionary advances. If you want to fixate on something Gloria Allred has said, fine. Stop erecting your flimsy "liberals" to knock down. Or at least indulge your fantasies in private.
You are confusing an idiot who wants absolute equality with the Liberals' honest scientific observation that the US has become insanely unequal and that remedies need to be taken to shore it up before the country finds itself a declined elitist pig state.
I disagree. I don't think things are close to as simple as you seem to think. It's easy to pick on Allred but she is a litigator, trained to make hyperbolic demands that leave plenty of room for profitable compromise. She's hardly representative of "liberals," whatever you thing that means. I certainly don't assume all conservatives are puffy, hypocritical junkies just because Limbaugh makes a lot of noise. I don't think you understand us at all. Do you really think your pat definition of progressivism is all there is to it? And how is your question illuminating? You don't really suspect we can't tell equality from similarity. Unless you actually think things are really that simple. Astonishing. Also, if you're going to pretend to question your opponents' language skills make sure not to misuse "begs the question." It doesn't mean what you think it means.
What exactly makes a liberal a 'liberal'? It appears to me through this forum that anyone not falling lockstep into far right wing ideology is instantly labeled liberal.
You seem to be asking this exclusively of non-Liberals but I will answer anyway. But as a Liberal, I would say- yes I am obsessed with equal opportunity for all. I don't expect or demand equal outcome. - - - Updated - - - There is lots of broad brushing- basically declaring the rantings of any nutjob on the right or the left as indicative of the mindset of everyone from the right or the left.
When it comes to certain aspects of Affirmative Action and equal pay arguments, I agree. On the other hand, I think demanding equality in things like marriage rights by sexual orientation is a valid argument for greater equality. It really depends on the issue. Equal opportunity and rights matter. Equal outcomes don't.
