Helloplite said:
Eeer... No. Those methods won't promote equality. You don't understand what equality is.
To answer your questions:
1. Why not? What is the basis for segregating sport based on sex?
2. Yes. Why should women need special protections? The same laws regarding rape, harassment and sexual crime can and should apply regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation. Many men are victims of these crimes as well. There is no point singling out women.
3. That's ridiculous and no one advocates this. Shows your thin understanding of left wing politics. Rather than take from the rich to give to the poor, this olden Robin Hood fantasy, what needs to happen is that the economic foundations of the system must be altered, so as to minimize the structural and institutional bias that generates poverty and homelessness.
4. They wouldn't. They describe wildly different things and have nothing to do with equality (or even equity). Equality is not about equalisation. It is about how the system is set-up and how opportunities are distributed in society and seized by individuals without benefitting those who in one way or another inherit power, money, class, race, or status.
Every single person who has ever justified hierarchy has described it as something "natural" and "normal". No one has proceeded to verify and prove this claim. It is yet another "truism" with no substantive basis.
No. Power and hierarchy are their own justification. The answer to this particular "why", is always a firm "because I can". Everything starts and ends with opportunity, and its' limits.
Carl Schmitt, philosopher of the Nazis, once quipped, about hierarchy, power and Law, that:
The origin of every Law, every power, and every hierarchy is a primal taking. An unlaw, a power made, a hierarchy constructed on no basis than its own self-justification.
Hierarchy is always self justified. Its' origin is not "nature" (which is something undefined and arbitrary!) but a primitive act of violence that established an order of things and people. Those who benefit from it are those who are lucky enough to inherit the outcomes of this originary violence. |
lmao cut the snark dude i've torn the stupid leftist equality nonsense apart more times than i can count
"Why not? What is the basis for segregating sport based on sex?"
lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question
uh well i'd think its obvious that the physical differences between men and women are why we don't match brock lesner and rhonda roussy for example... are you in disagreement with the fact that men and women are different?
"Why should women need special protections? The same laws regarding rape, harassment and sexual crime can and should apply regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation."
i actually agree but i've noted the inconsistency in many leftist ideas
i knew that it was quite likely that he'd say that women should have special protections while advocating for equality as the vast majority of leftists pushing the equality doctrine do because they refuse to be coherent in their beliefs
"That's ridiculous and no one advocates this"
i think its quite ridiculous for you to claim to speak for everyone especially when i have evidence to back up what i'm saying
etc etc etc
and before you get into the silly hand waving nonsense of the difference between private property and personal property you should note that there is no coherent principle behind that since any possession depending on the context can be used for profit
"Shows your thin understanding of left wing politics."
lmao my friend i am absolutely sure that i understand your so called socialist principles better than you do so don't make me laugh
"what needs to happen is that the economic foundations of the system must be altered, so as to minimize the structural and institutional bias that generates poverty and homelessness."
and how do you propose we do so? in russia and other countries where socialist revolutions occured they seized the businesses of all the people who were productive and murdered them, i'm hoping you have a better solution
"They wouldn't. They describe wildly different things and have nothing to do with equality (or even equity)"
to be fair i was just bringing up ridiculous points that came to mind at that point, i wasn't being serious really but regardless...
you don't think desegregating sports is more in line with equality than keeping them segregated? can you expand upon that for me please?
did you not go along with my proposal of taking away special protections for women?
"It is about how the system is set-up and how opportunities are distributed in society and seized by individuals without benefitting those who in one way or another inherit power"
so i'm assuming that if you have children that you'll have them give away any wealth you would have accumulated over your life so they can start at a more equitable position?
"Every single person who has ever justified hierarchy has described it as something "natural" and "normal". No one has proceeded to verify and prove this claim. "
i'm back here now
"lol you've ever realised that its incredibly hard to explain something that should be obvious? that's the dilemma i'm facing with this question"
tell me something, can you play ball as well as lebron james? swim as fast as michael phelps? what? no? well why not?
"Hierarchy is always self justified."
uh you disagree with me right? you started this conversation with this "Eeer... No. Those methods won't promote equality. You don't understand what equality is."
does that mean that you are stating you are more knowledgeable than i am? are you unaware that you are setting up a hierarchy yourself?
it amuses me how leftists will get into an argument and claim that hierarchies cannot be justified (and i'm not saying they are or can here) while not realising their incoherence, it really is fascinating to me
