On Equality (an excerpt from The Advancing Society)

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by JBeukema, Aug 31, 2010.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Second draft:





    What, then, does it mean to speak of equality? Do we mean to say one man is necessarily to another in any objective sense? Certainly not, for such an assertion is absurd on its face- men are not- men are not all equal in their build, their character (either in their natural or inherent disposition or in the sum of their natural disposition and their experience), or in their physical and mental capacities and potential. Indeed, the market itself, the division of labour, and the specialization which makes the modern age possible are built upon this very fact of nature. Equality, then is not to be misconstrued as the equal nature, potential, attributes, or value of all persons (consider the fair judge against the diseased thief), but is rather to be understood as the equality of all citizens before the law and the equal right of all members of our society to develop their own potential free of discrimination based upon their race, sex, colour, or place and caste of birth.

    The Liberal and the ‘Progressive’ have long had great difficulty comprehending the concept of equality. The Liberal loves to speak as though men are widgets or some other mass-produced product of industry, ‘created equal’, built to with a micron of some standard, and devoid of individual variation and potential. Yet the very Laizze-Faire market they espouse depends upon the inequality of men in their shrewdness, ingenuity, ideas, industriousness, and mental and physical capacities in order to function. Furthermore, the birth of ill and misshapen children, the variation of human skin colour, and common experience with a number of individuals all show us the variation with our species and render absurd such assertions of human equality and uniformity. Only by appealing to vague metaphysics or simply refusing to address the issue can the Liberal respond to these realities. The ‘Progressive’ (as they dub themselves), on the other hand, takes the Liberal’s rhetoric of ‘equality’ as a commandment that men must be made equal by Taking from the successful to enrich the incompetent and showing favour in all things to failures and the idle over the competent and industrious. Yet such measures of authoritarian collectivism yet the ‘Progressives’ have enacted and continue to advocate have not resulted in the equal condition and results they promise, as the incompetent squander what is handed them and the successful become more cunning in protecting their earnings from seizure. Rather than moving us towards egalitarianism, they perpetuate class antagonisms and add fuel to class warfare- hinting, perhaps, at the neo-Marxian roots of much of their philosophy. Whether they do this merely to secure votes and further their own careers, or out of total ignorance, or for more nefarious reasons, I leave to your own judgment. Regardless, the results remain unchanged. And what is the result of this indefensible and intelligent preference shown towards the wicked, the incompetent, and the incredibly flawed? It's that the ills which afflict them and which they inflict upon the rest of humanity are perpetuated and magnified indefinitely as a culture of vice, laziness, and incompetence is cultured and nurtured. This is not equality and it is most certainly not progress. Doubtless, both the Liberal and the ‘Progressive’ have failed us.

    We do well to recall the spirit of J.B.S. Huxley, which can be expressed thus: A society composed of uniform ‘perfect’ beings would be most imperfect. A nation of perfect Proletarian factory workers might excel at the manufacture of automobiles, but can it succeed without farmers? Can a society of Mozarts or Einsteins be sustained without breeders of chickens and cattle? What is a nation of engineers without chefs and captains of industry? Clearly, the very wellbeing and wealth, both material and cultural, of a society is found in the variety, the individuality-the inequality- of its People, from the economic shrewdness of its businessmen to the industriousness of the ‘simple’ labourer to the impressive feats of its athletes and the richness of its cuisine and music. The Advancing Society, indeed, any great society, must recognize this and, while the common People and Culture must be safeguarded against attack and destruction, we must always accept those elements which promise to further enrich our own culture, industry, and society, and always beware of and safeguard against those who preach the gospel of homogeneity. Just as population needs new blood to remain healthy and the inbreeding of a homogeneous group leads to disaster, so to must a healthy nation and culture embrace the heterogeneity and variety which enriches it and makes it great. Thus,, the role of eugenics is not homogeneity but simply health, the role of economic policy is not isolationism but simply sustainability and security, and likewise in all matters must this balance be struck between the true meaning of social equality properly understood and the beauty and health inherent in Man’s inequalities.
     
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Are you finally admitting that the people who keep pointing out the immorality of eugenics are right? Perhaps you should do a little more studying on what equality before the law actually means before you advocate going to a caste system where people are locked into the job they are born to.

    Can a chicken farmer raise above his breeding and become an engineer? Can a physicist look around one day and decide he would be happier as a goat herder? That is the true meaning of equality, and your misguided attempts to redefine equality as dependent on physical or mental ability shows how desperate you are to redefine terms to make yourself look morally superior shows your lack of understanding of the concepts you are discussing.
     
  3. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Oh yes, prenatal care and love for your child are horrible evil things :rolleyes:
    What in the blue hell are you babbling about now? Do you even know what you're rambling about? It's a matter of public record that I advocate meritocracy. What on Earth do you think 'the equal right of all members of our society to develop their own potential free of discrimination based upon their race, sex, colour, or place and caste of birth' means?
    So now you claim that a man is bred into raising chickens? :lol:

    Once again, your illiteracy and your pride undo you.
     
  4. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    They are if you are a supporter of eugenics.

     
  5. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    So if I believe in caring for my children, then it becomes a horrible thing for me to care for my children? it's as though you're trying to make your worldview as absurd as possible.


    :rolleyes:

    Why can't you just admit you didn't read it and you made a fool of yourself again?
    What universe do you live in? What post did you read?
     
  6. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    That actually sounds pathetic. Was that you intent, or purely an accident?

    Eugenicists believe that caring for a child includes killing it if it is flawed. They do this through abortions, infanticide, and, in some cases, eliminating them if they develop abnormalities later in life. They also advocate forced sterilization and breeding programs.

    Because I didn't read it wrong, I just do not know what you think it means.

    This one.

    Maybe you should learn a little more about what J. B S. Haldane, Aldous Huxley, and Julian Huxley advocated before you tell me I am misreading your posts, especially since you made up a name to quote by combining the initials of one person and the last name of another.
     
  7. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Really? Do support your assertion by showing that all who wish to see their children born well advocate killing them if they meet your definition of flawed.
    Fail. Many eugenicists oppose such things. Even when such things were4 practiced, there were eugenicists who opposed them, advocating liberal and positive eugenics and detesting the totalitarianism inherent in negative eugenics. You were talking about bias and loading the facts? Didn't you read In the Name of Eugenics (or any other books without pictures)? Read the writings of the people who have advocated prenatal care, recombinant DNA technology, Preimplantation screening, and other techniques to ensure health before running your mouth about something you know nothing of.
    It means exactly what it says, you dolt. It's not a matter of what I think it means- I know what it means because I wrote it.

    I made nothing up, you idiot. First off, I didn't quote anyone and I didn't claim to quote anyone. If I erred in the typing of a name, then i either mistyped it or miswrote (or, given my handwriting, more likely misread it) when transcribing my handwritten notes. Now, do show where I claimed to quote anyone.

    Of course, if you'd read In the Name of Eugenics, you'd recognize the sentiment, since the man was quoted in that book as well as in others.
     
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    My definition? You are the one calling for a breeding program, not me. You are the one claiming some people are more equal than others, not me. I do not have to prove anything, you are the one who is claiming that eugenics, which has proven to be one of the worst perversions of science in history, is benign. I think that places the burden on you, as anyone who understands history know that eugenics is fundamentally flawed.

    Remember how I told you that book was biased? The author makes the assumption that the problem with eugenics was in the people who ran it, and ignores the inherent problems with the philosophy behind it. He ignores the historical fact that eugenics always, repeat always, requires that totalitarianism you claim to despise. It will not work otherwise.

    The problem still remains that you continually contradict it, and that makes me wonder if you even know what you are saying.

    I take that back. You continually argue that eugenics is science, so I know you do not know what you are saying.

    You make up everything you say, unless you are quoting someone. So tell me, did you quote someone, or did you make it up?

    Like I told you before, go look at the source material that is used in "In the Name of Eugenics" and you will understand why I, and others, claim it is biased. Until then you are just spouting your own uninformed, and incorrect, interpretation of a biased book.
     
  9. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Really? Where? Do show us.
    Really? Where? i never said any such thing. What I've said its that men are not equal.
    Yes, you do. You have to prove I said what you're claiming I said, liar.

    The desire to cure disease and see the next generation better off? Yes, medicine, democracy, and all attempts to improve the world are evil! We must renounce medicine and return to the fields as apes!
    Fail. See: liberal eugenics.

    Demonstrate. I've shown you repeatedly to be a liar worthy of your name, windbag.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Liberals believe in government intervention in business, especially health care, as was demonstrated last year. How long do you think liberal eugenics will survive without government intervention?

    As I said before, eugenics always, repeat always, requires totalitarianism. The idea is wonderful, but humans will always corrupt it. By advocating eugenics you advocate all ot the consequences, just as anyone who advocates anarchy advocates the consequences it entails.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page