While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be used in a suit for pay discrimination.
But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher paying professions, the gap is much larger.
So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
> While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when
> he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are
> discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be
> used in a suit for pay discrimination.
> But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act
> of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher
> paying professions, the gap is much larger.
> So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness
> Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans
> blocked it in the Senate.
> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
> What war on women?
Going back a half-dozen years ago, I first stumbled across this list
of characteristics of fascism. At the time, though, when Bush was in
office, I didn't really see it surfacing. In fact, I figured that this
was the one exception to the case that you could make that Republicans
have morphed into fascists. Now, of course, they have really showed
their true colors and all the characteristics fit. Here's the list:
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler
(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and
several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining
characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of
enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are
persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of
"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of
torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or
religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists,
etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of
government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and
military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be
almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional
gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality
are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian
of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled
by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly
controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople
and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist
nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool
to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is
common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the
religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or
actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business
aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the
government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/
government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor
is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are
either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.
It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored
or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly
attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the
police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people
are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil
liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police
force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always
are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each
other to government positions and use governmental power and authority
to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in
fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be
appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are
a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear
campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use
of legislation to control voting numbers or political district
boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also
typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
"Islander" wrote in message So, now the Democrats are once
again advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is not new,
but when it was last advanced, Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?<<<<<<<<<<
Just because the bill's name is "the Paycheck Fairness Act",
the bill might not have anything to do with women's wages.
Democrats name bills so they can fool the uninformed (read democrat voters)
into thinking they know what the bill is about.
Remember Clinton's "Assault weapon Ban" ?
It had NOTHING to do with assault weapons.
The Obamacare bill is named "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
I don't know what they are protecting the patients from, but it sure isn't affordable.
If 'anyone' wants more money, you ask for it
or go get another job. No employer owes you
jack shit, more pay, or any and all benefits. You can whine and moan or go get another job.
: "Islander" wrote in message So, now the Democrats are once
: again advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is not new,
: but when it was last advanced, Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
: Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?<<<<<<<<<<
:
:
: Just because the bill's name is "the Paycheck Fairness Act",
: the bill might not have anything to do with women's wages.
: Democrats name bills so they can fool the uninformed (read democrat voters)
: into thinking they know what the bill is about.
: Remember Clinton's "Assault weapon Ban" ?
: It had NOTHING to do with assault weapons.
: The Obamacare bill is named "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
: Act".
: I don't know what they are protecting the patients from, but it sure isn't
: affordable.
:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:24:01, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
> While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when > he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are > discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be > used in a suit for pay discrimination.
> But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act > of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher > paying professions, the gap is much larger.
> So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness > Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans > blocked it in the Senate.
> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
> What war on women?
What is your point? Republicans block everything that the Dems try
to do and vice-versa! The whole idea of equality between a women,
and a man is truly bullshit. Each, "not an average", has different.
ideas,
desires, aspirations, thoughts, plumbing, wishes and everything else!
Earthlings need celibrate these differences, not equality!
>> While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when >> he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are >> discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be >> used in a suit for pay discrimination.
>> But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act >> of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher >> paying professions, the gap is much larger.
>> So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness >> Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans >> blocked it in the Senate.
>> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
>> What war on women?
>What is your point? Republicans block everything that the Dems try
>to do and vice-versa! The whole idea of equality between a women,
>and a man is truly bullshit. Each, "not an average", has different.
>ideas,
>desires, aspirations, thoughts, plumbing, wishes and everything else!
>Earthlings need celibrate these differences, not equality!
Why do you think most of us do not know men and women are
different? In many ways.
We are talking specifically about equal pay for equal work. If a
man or a woman does a comparable job, he or she should have
the same pay scale for that particular work.
Not being female, you seem to have somehow have missed along the way
that was not always the case. On newspaper I worked on, women
reporters and editors were paid signficantly less than the men. I
produced twice the work as one guy who was lazy as sin and sat back
and yawned in his office chair, blew his nose and then examined his
handkerchief minutely all day but I learned I was paid significantly
less. Because women just were -- in the era before the ERA.
Late when I finally joined the printer's union, my pay was finally
equal to that of the m en I worked with.
> "Islander" wrote in message So, now the Democrats are once
> again advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is not new,
> but when it was last advanced, Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?<<<<<<<<<<
> Just because the bill's name is "the Paycheck Fairness Act",
> the bill might not have anything to do with women's wages.
> Democrats name bills so they can fool the uninformed (read democrat > voters)
> into thinking they know what the bill is about.
> Remember Clinton's "Assault weapon Ban" ?
> It had NOTHING to do with assault weapons.
> The Obamacare bill is named "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care > Act".
> I don't know what they are protecting the patients from, but it sure isn't > affordable.
On 25/05/12 1:24, in article jpmfuo$gk...@dont-email.me, "Islander"
<nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
This is a tough one to get operational
However, in civil service equal treatment is mandated.
Even in the 1950s in California, when my wife
worked for the state (Unemployment) for the same position
equal pay. In the University of California, a Associate
Professor step 3 (for example), men and women get the same
salary.
The problems reaching that level. In lower level civil service
there is no problem.
But in private employment the bosses play the labor market and
offer what they have to to get a position filled. At the time
my wife went to work for the state offers from private industry
were not great, the state paid more.
Men often know that some other man is getting paid
more money. He does not immediately think it's
because his breasts are too big.
LIFE IS NOT FAIR. It never was and never will be.
Boys are often treated as inferior in the class room because they are active, fun and act up.
Girls are more submissive and easier for the teacher to control.
On Fri, 25 May 2012 02:19:34, Rita <rtkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:06:16 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:24:01, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
> >> While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when > >> he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are > >> discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be > >> used in a suit for pay discrimination.
> >> But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act > >> of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher > >> paying professions, the gap is much larger.
> >> So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness > >> Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans > >> blocked it in the Senate.
> >> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
> >> What war on women?
> >What is your point? Republicans block everything that the Dems try
> >to do and vice-versa! The whole idea of equality between a women,
> >and a man is truly bullshit. Each, "not an average", has different.
> >ideas,
> >desires, aspirations, thoughts, plumbing, wishes and everything else!
> >Earthlings need celibrate these differences, not equality!
> Why do you think most of us do not know men and women are
> different? In many ways.
> We are talking specifically about equal pay for equal work. If a
> man or a woman does a comparable job, he or she should have
> the same pay scale for that particular work.
Where do you get the idea that anyone can deo a comparable job
to anyone else? That only works if everyone is doing as little as possible.
Anyone doing as little as possible on the job, should get no pay..
> Not being female, you seem to have somehow have missed along the way
> that was not always the case. On newspaper I worked on, women
> reporters and editors were paid signficantly less than the men. I
> produced twice the work as one guy who was lazy as sin and sat back
> and yawned in his office chair, blew his nose and then examined his
> handkerchief minutely all day but I learned I was paid significantly
> less. Because women just were -- in the era before the ERA.
> Late when I finally joined the printer's union, my pay was finally
> equal to that of the m en I worked with.
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:06:16 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>> Janoschka) wrote:
>> >On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:24:01, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
>> >> While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when >> >> he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are >> >> discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be >> >> used in a suit for pay discrimination.
>> >> But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act >> >> of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher >> >> paying professions, the gap is much larger.
>> >> So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness >> >> Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans >> >> blocked it in the Senate.
>> >> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
>> >> What war on women?
>> >What is your point? Republicans block everything that the Dems try
>> >to do and vice-versa! The whole idea of equality between a women,
>> >and a man is truly bullshit. Each, "not an average", has different.
>> >ideas,
>> >desires, aspirations, thoughts, plumbing, wishes and everything else!
>> >Earthlings need celibrate these differences, not equality!
>> Why do you think most of us do not know men and women are
>> different? In many ways.
>> We are talking specifically about equal pay for equal work. If a
>> man or a woman does a comparable job, he or she should have
>> the same pay scale for that particular work.
>Where do you get the idea that anyone can deo a comparable job
>to anyone else? That only works if everyone is doing as little as >possible.
>Anyone doing as little as possible on the job, should get no pay..
You totally miss the point -- women were hired to do the exact
same jobs as men did but were paid less not based on performance
but because they were women. In other simple words they were
discriminated against not because of what they did or did not do
once on the job but because many employers simply set lower
pay scales for women employees, regardless of the job.
This is history but if you choose to ignore it, no skin off my nose.
> On 25/05/12 1:24, in article jpmfuo$gk...@dont-email.me, "Islander"
> <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
>> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
> This is a tough one to get operational
> However, in civil service equal treatment is mandated.
> Even in the 1950s in California, when my wife
> worked for the state (Unemployment) for the same position
> equal pay. In the University of California, a Associate
> Professor step 3 (for example), men and women get the same
> salary.
> The problems reaching that level. In lower level civil service
> there is no problem.
> But in private employment the bosses play the labor market and
> offer what they have to to get a position filled. At the time
> my wife went to work for the state offers from private industry
> were not great, the state paid more.
My experience with the federal government was that the rules were much more rigorous than the private sector - and they were enforced!
Not at all. I'm claiming that setting pay, or equal pay, has little relationship to performance. It does not equate to equal performance. This would be the case for men and women. In public schools, for example, you will find set wage scales. Often the higher wage scales are found in the worse performing schools. So legislating equal performance is as reasonable, or unreasonable, as legislating equal pay. Why is no one demanding equal performance wages?
> >> >> While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when > >> >> he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are > >> >> discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be > >> >> used in a suit for pay discrimination.
> >> >> But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act > >> >> of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher > >> >> paying professions, the gap is much larger.
> >> >> So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness > >> >> Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans > >> >> blocked it in the Senate.
> >> >> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
> >> >> What war on women?
> >> >What is your point? Republicans block everything that the Dems try
> >> >to do and vice-versa! The whole idea of equality between a women,
> >> >and a man is truly bullshit. Each, "not an average", has different.
> >> >ideas,
> >> >desires, aspirations, thoughts, plumbing, wishes and everything else!
> >> >Earthlings need celibrate these differences, not equality!
> >> Why do you think most of us do not know men and women are
> >> different? In many ways.
> >> We are talking specifically about equal pay for equal work. If a
> >> man or a woman does a comparable job, he or she should have
> >> the same pay scale for that particular work.
> >Where do you get the idea that anyone can deo a comparable job
> >to anyone else? That only works if everyone is doing as little as > >possible.
> >Anyone doing as little as possible on the job, should get no pay..
> You totally miss the point -- women were hired to do the exact
> same jobs as men did but were paid less not based on performance
> but because they were women. In other simple words they were
> discriminated against not because of what they did or did not do
> once on the job but because many employers simply set lower
> pay scales for women employees, regardless of the job.
> This is history but if you choose to ignore it, no skin off my nose.
All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
equal
or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
is !00% Bull Shit.
On May 25, 12:09 pm, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> Not at all. I'm claiming that setting pay, or equal pay, has little relationship to performance. It does not equate to equal performance. This would be the case for men and women. In public schools, for example, you will find set wage scales. Often the higher wage scales are found in the worse performing schools. So legislating equal performance is as reasonable, or unreasonable, as legislating equal pay. Why is no one demanding equal performance wages?
Except for minimum wage requirements, I don't think the federal
government should be involved in telling private employers how much
money they should pay different individuals. I do think the federal
government should be involved in preventing discrimination against
groups of people based on their color, gender, religion, or ethnicity,
etc.
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:44:19, Rita<rtkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 09:34:33 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>> Janoschka) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 02:19:34, Rita<rtkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:06:16 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>>>> Janoschka) wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:24:01, Islander<nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when
>>>>>> he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are
>>>>>> discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be
>>>>>> used in a suit for pay discrimination.
>>>>>> But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act
>>>>>> of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher
>>>>>> paying professions, the gap is much larger.
>>>>>> So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness
>>>>>> Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans
>>>>>> blocked it in the Senate.
>>>>>> Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
>>>>>> What war on women?
>>>>> What is your point? Republicans block everything that the Dems try
>>>>> to do and vice-versa! The whole idea of equality between a women,
>>>>> and a man is truly bullshit. Each, "not an average", has different.
>>>>> ideas,
>>>>> desires, aspirations, thoughts, plumbing, wishes and everything else!
>>>>> Earthlings need celibrate these differences, not equality!
>>>> Why do you think most of us do not know men and women are
>>>> different? In many ways.
>>>> We are talking specifically about equal pay for equal work. If a
>>>> man or a woman does a comparable job, he or she should have
>>>> the same pay scale for that particular work.
>>> Where do you get the idea that anyone can deo a comparable job
>>> to anyone else? That only works if everyone is doing as little as
>>> possible.
>>> Anyone doing as little as possible on the job, should get no pay..
>> You totally miss the point -- women were hired to do the exact
>> same jobs as men did but were paid less not based on performance
>> but because they were women. In other simple words they were
>> discriminated against not because of what they did or did not do
>> once on the job but because many employers simply set lower
>> pay scales for women employees, regardless of the job.
>> This is history but if you choose to ignore it, no skin off my nose.
> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
> equal
> or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
> is !00% Bull Shit.
You are correct in stating that no two humans are exactly equal. We are all unique, even down to the DNA that defines us.
More to the point, does every human deserve equal rights. This is fundamental to our culture as is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Contemporary political philosopher John Rawls goes a bit further:
"Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out."
Rawls poses an interesting thesis that moral rules can only be assured if the individuals making the rules do not know ahead of time whether or not those rules will be applied to them.
So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to being forced to do their share.
>> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
>> equal
>> or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
>> is !00% Bull Shit.
>You are correct in stating that no two humans are exactly equal. We are >all unique, even down to the DNA that defines us.
>More to the point, does every human deserve equal rights. This is >fundamental to our culture as is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable >Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>Contemporary political philosopher John Rawls goes a bit further:
>"Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from >their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who >have lost out."
>Rawls poses an interesting thesis that moral rules can only be assured >if the individuals making the rules do not know ahead of time whether or >not those rules will be applied to them.
>So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more >fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to >say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to >being forced to do their share.
I don't object to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal ..." despite that it is of course a complete fiction, made out of thin air. It's not "self-evident" at all as is claimed. The real state of humanity is very much the opposite in fact - inequality of station and of talent is everywhere. The hyperbolic language in the Declaration can be justified IMV by the urgent necessity at the time to advocate that the United States be founded, if only as a shining ideal that will never be fully realized, on a sensibility of offering people a shot at comfort and fulfillment, as opposed to the horrors and brutalities of lawless and feudal and
"aristocratic" societies.
We should stay aware, though, IMV, that the statement is fiction. It's a noble fiction, so pleasing and beneficial that I'm
glad humanity up with it, but a noble fiction is still a fiction.
On 25/05/12 19:01, in article jpodtv$kd...@dont-email.me, "Islander"
<nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
> My experience with the federal government was that the rules were much
> more rigorous than the private sector - and they were enforced!
The procedure for advancement is established via exams and committee
reviews of those judging the candidates. As a result, even in
the 1950s in California women held high positions in the Department
of Human Resources (I think it was called). Where the problem
is in academia is that to getting tenure you have to nearly be
a monk and work a very long day for years (5 or 6). Women who
also want children are at a disadvantage, it is a definite
handicapped. In my field, chemistry, now about 50% or a little
more of the four year BS degrees are given to women, so their
is equality there, but for the PhD you find far fewer, maybe 30%
Those getting academic positions at trop research universities is
not over 10%.
While I was chairman we hired two woman, neither of them eventually
got tenure. Now the situation is a bit better.
When I came to France in the 1960s I was surprised to find so many
women in CNRS positions, about 30% and some were professors also
running their own research groups. At that time it was rare
to see a women attending a seminar, so the contrast hit me
when I gave seminars in France, facing so many women. The only
woman grad student I had was Algerian, she had a academic position
in Algeria but did not have a doctorate. So to get advancement
she had to get a doctorate. She was about 40 and her children
raised. Her husband was a modern Moslem and did not object
to her coming to France for months at a time to do here work
(mainly computational using our computers). They had an agreement,
get the children raised and then pursue "your career". She was
intelligent and hard working and eventually got her doctorat d'etat,
which is a degree no longer offered now but workwise about equivalent
to a US PhD + two years of postdoctoral research.
Women expect prejudice, don't like it, and don't expect preferential
treatment since they don't get it. Some men do.
On 26/05/12 2:30, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-pn2-QQxod97Gl...@209-142-179-208.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
> equal or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
> is !00% Bull Shit.
This issue is about equal opportunity, a leveled playing field.
On the time in the 1950s when my wife went to Stanford, girls
had to have an A high school average to get in. The boys did not.
That was before grade inflation. At that time the cultural
expectations were that women went to college to find a husband
so few slots were open to them.
From 1950-1954 I went to Caltech, it was all male. The idea it
why waste a slot in a top institution on a woman? At that time
the smartest person in my high school was a girl. She had to
to go to UCLA although if she had been born later she would
have gotten into Caltech. I always had the feeling that if
at the time she could have gotten in, she would have taken
my slot.
So indeed she was not my equal but superior to it. But
because I was male I got special treatment. She was handicapped
by her gender.
So Will, it is about equal opportunity not equality.
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:05:37 -0700, Islander<nos...@priracy.net> '
>> On 5/25/2012 5:30 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> <snip>
>>> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
>>> equal
>>> or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
>>> is !00% Bull Shit.
>> You are correct in stating that no two humans are exactly equal. We are
>> all unique, even down to the DNA that defines us.
>> More to the point, does every human deserve equal rights. This is
>> fundamental to our culture as is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>> Contemporary political philosopher John Rawls goes a bit further:
>> "Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from
>> their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who
>> have lost out."
>> Rawls poses an interesting thesis that moral rules can only be assured
>> if the individuals making the rules do not know ahead of time whether or
>> not those rules will be applied to them.
>> So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more
>> fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to
>> say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to
>> being forced to do their share.
> I don't object to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
> all men are created equal ..." despite that it is of course a
> complete fiction, made out of thin air. It's not "self-evident"
> at all as is claimed. The real state of humanity is very much
> the opposite in fact - inequality of station and of talent is
> everywhere. The hyperbolic language in the Declaration can
> be justified IMV by the urgent necessity at the time to
> advocate that the United States be founded, if only as a
> shining ideal that will never be fully realized, on a sensibility
> of offering people a shot at comfort and fulfillment, as opposed
> to the horrors and brutalities of lawless and feudal and
> "aristocratic" societies.
> We should stay aware, though, IMV, that the statement is
> fiction. It's a noble fiction, so pleasing and beneficial that I'm
> glad humanity up with it, but a noble fiction is still a fiction.
><
Isn't the basis of all religious beliefs also a noble fiction ?
Or - perhaps not so noble, but self serving ?
<2blues1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 5/25/2012 10:53 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:05:37 -0700, Islander<nos...@priracy.net> '
>>> On 5/25/2012 5:30 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
>>>> equal
>>>> or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
>>>> is !00% Bull Shit.
>>> You are correct in stating that no two humans are exactly equal. We are
>>> all unique, even down to the DNA that defines us.
>>> More to the point, does every human deserve equal rights. This is
>>> fundamental to our culture as is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
>>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>>> Contemporary political philosopher John Rawls goes a bit further:
>>> "Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from
>>> their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who
>>> have lost out."
>>> Rawls poses an interesting thesis that moral rules can only be assured
>>> if the individuals making the rules do not know ahead of time whether or
>>> not those rules will be applied to them.
>>> So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more
>>> fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to
>>> say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to
>>> being forced to do their share.
>> I don't object to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
>> all men are created equal ..." despite that it is of course a
>> complete fiction, made out of thin air. It's not "self-evident"
>> at all as is claimed. The real state of humanity is very much
>> the opposite in fact - inequality of station and of talent is
>> everywhere. The hyperbolic language in the Declaration can
>> be justified IMV by the urgent necessity at the time to
>> advocate that the United States be founded, if only as a
>> shining ideal that will never be fully realized, on a sensibility
>> of offering people a shot at comfort and fulfillment, as opposed
>> to the horrors and brutalities of lawless and feudal and
>> "aristocratic" societies.
>> We should stay aware, though, IMV, that the statement is
>> fiction. It's a noble fiction, so pleasing and beneficial that I'm
>> glad humanity up with it, but a noble fiction is still a fiction.
> ><
>Isn't the basis of all religious beliefs also a noble fiction ?
>Or - perhaps not so noble, but self serving ?
"Not noble" is the difference IMV, and in yours too I'm sure.
The history of religion is a history of blood and intolerance and
injustice. The history of the USA, while spotty, even blotchy,
is at least making an attempt to go in the "right direction" and
makes some progress from time to time. Religion is milder now not because of itself but because the advancing secular
enlightenment starting with the Renaissance made religion's
previous brutality unacceptable to many people. Most religion,
however, is still in the rearguard of enlightenment and human
kindness, pulled along grudgingly and ill-humouredly behind the train, continuing to hang on desperately to its hallowed and evil old paradigms. As a homosexual, one of the last of the "niggers", I'm in a position to see that all too clearly, more clearly than most people who aren't as directly affected.
http://tinyurl.com/85thsqr
