What does equal rights mean to you?

[Two Thumbs]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

we get our rights from the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

That means the government can't force us to treat everyone the same, most especially on our own property, which includes our businesses.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Those with privilege view equal rights as oppression.

The leftwing concept of equal rights is oppression.

Silly nutter. You must have tried really hard for that one.

 

[bripat9643]

Those with privilege view equal rights as oppression.

The leftwing concept of equal rights is oppression.

Silly nutter. You must have tried really hard for that one.

What a pathetic douche.

 

[TheParser]

A Supreme Court justice once said that he could not define "pornography" but that he could recognize pornography when he saw it.

*****

I cannot define "equal rights," but I can recognize it when I see it.

*****

For example, I do NOT believe that women have "equal rights" to serve aboard submarines.

A submarine is a small confined area. Top morale is necessary for a crew. War is not playtime.

At least one scandal about male/female "fun" aboard a sub has been reported. I am guessing that other incidents have been hushed up.

 

[dblack]

Well this is interesting Mr Dblack, objectively who sets the social gestalt? Governance or Society?

On one hand, watching the fool in office coerce enough 'borg' to his will advocates the former, yet so many that have the HP to view things objectively would not

So back at you, can morality be legislated?

~S~

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. To answer your questions: society sets the social gestalt, and morality can be legislated, but I think it's an abuse of government to do so.

Chicken / Egg DB? This got me wondering>>>

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

One could , if one wished to explore the extreme examples, look up all this rock's genocides.

They happened , and those societies they happened in went right along with the phenomenal moral turpitude by proxy of rouge governance

The trick is convincing any populace that someone different doesn't belong, is evil, and therefor is NOT equal as a human being

Now that we've elected a xenophobic potus , we can see all the signs and symptoms a would be dictator would use but can't, as thankfully we're not a dictatorship

Yet in theory and practice upon human nature , they're working like a charm ,along with a society raft with cheerleaders high 5'ing it all.

That might be 'chicken' ......

'egg' might be those mindless race riots (again as example) that we've a grand history of. Now the gub'mit has to step in and sort it out

In either case the pendulum of social gestalt can swing , be it from the 'powers that be' ,or that of grass rooted origin

~S~

Hmm.... I'm still unable to decipher this.

 

[sparky]

My bad then DB

I'm trying to address where 'social morality' hails from through example

I guess i'm not doing a very good job of it, sorry

~S~

 

[dblack]

nice girls finally coming up to me and asking me if i want to practice with them.

Should this be enfor

It means a fair and equal chance at any given opportunity. That's different than a guarantee

And how would government secure such a conception of equal rights? Should it make sure that other people in society are giving one a 'fair and equal chance'?

 

[dblack]

My bad then DB

I'm trying to address where 'social morality' hails from through example

I guess i'm not doing a very good job of it, sorry

~S~

How, in your view, does social morality relate to equal rights?

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Pineapple​

.​

 

[sparky]

My bad then DB

I'm trying to address where 'social morality' hails from through example

I guess i'm not doing a very good job of it, sorry

~S~

How, in your view, does social morality relate to equal rights?

In my view it's always evolving .....

for instance , quite a while ago a bunch of slave owning aristocrats wrote our constitution insisting on equality.

So what was socially and morally acceptable then would obviously be screaming hypocrisy now.....

(insert image of Morgan Friedman serving lunch in the rose garden)

But it goes deeper, in that the human race is always searching for some sort of moral benchmark ,something that is morally acceptable to the majority to hang hat on

This is where you'll find all the religmo's putting their $.02 in. They think being a moral human takes a manual and whatever indoctrination

I think watching my dogs serve as better example for being a good moral human


~S~

 

[Pogo]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

You had it right the first time. Equal treatment by government.

"Society", by which you must mean "cultural mores" are not, and cannot be, legislated. That's done by social taboos and value reinforcements. And it'll vary within subcultures, so it would be folly to equate the government of a nation with the subcultures therein as if they were all one thing.

Oh really? then why did you turds force some bakers to bake a wedding cake for a couple of queers?

I didn't.

Go ahead Finger Boy --- prove me wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

You had it right the first time. Equal treatment by government.

"Society", by which you must mean "cultural mores" are not, and cannot be, legislated. That's done by social taboos and value reinforcements. And it'll vary within subcultures, so it would be folly to equate the government of a nation with the subcultures therein as if they were all one thing.

Oh really? then why did you turds force some bakers to bake a wedding cake for a couple of queers?

I didn't.

Go ahead Finger Boy --- prove me wrong.

Your ilk certainly did, and you defended it.

 

[my2¢]

I went with "society". A prime example of equal rights as I view it is allowing a person to buy whatever house they can afford and not being blocked by a bank or realtor because of the color of their skin.

Would have picked "both" if it were an option.

 

[dblack]

I went with "society". A prime example of equal rights as I view it is allowing a person to buy whatever house they can afford and not being blocked by a bank or realtor because of the color of their skin.

Would have picked "both" if it were an option.

That's sort of the point. It's not an option. The two approaches aren't compatible.

 

[my2¢]

I went with "society". A prime example of equal rights as I view it is allowing a person to buy whatever house they can afford and not being blocked by a bank or realtor because of the color of their skin.

Would have picked "both" if it were an option.

That's sort of the point. It's not an option. The two approaches aren't compatible.

I see them as incompatible only if you believe that one or another should be allowed to discriminate.

What if I believe in fair housing (society) then why can't I also believe in the voting rights act (government)?

 

[Skull Pilot]

My definition of equal rights is you mind your own god damned business and I'll mind mine

 

[Pogo]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

You had it right the first time. Equal treatment by government.

"Society", by which you must mean "cultural mores" are not, and cannot be, legislated. That's done by social taboos and value reinforcements. And it'll vary within subcultures, so it would be folly to equate the government of a nation with the subcultures therein as if they were all one thing.

Oh really? then why did you turds force some bakers to bake a wedding cake for a couple of queers?

I didn't.

Go ahead Finger Boy --- prove me wrong.

Your ilk certainly did, and you defended it.

Once again Fingerboy lies. Maybe you should turn on the "Narrator " function to read for you, seeing as how you're incapable.

What I said was, PROVE ME WRONG.
You need an explanation for what the word "prove" means or what?

Better get busy, lying fuck.

 

[danielpalos]

Women coming up to us and proclaiming they can't stand to even be around us when we have such low numbers and such little practice, and it makes them want to do something about it.

 

[SeaGal]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

Well put.

I agree that the term equal rights refers to 'equal in the eyes of the law'...and only the law can deliver on that promise. Which sometimes means non-interference based on gender, race or creed.

In society the term equal rights has been replaced by social justice. Social justice and blind justice are not always compatible. The former is acutely aware of gender, race and wealth...and seeks to mitigate diversity of outcome through legal channels if possible (which destroys all pretense of a belief in equal rights), - the latter only guarantees opportunity.

An example of the injustice of social justice - a baker who was vilified for refusing to bake, and a coffee shop owner who was applauded for refusing to serve. Social justice takes equal rights and scatters them to the wind of opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

You had it right the first time. Equal treatment by government.

"Society", by which you must mean "cultural mores" are not, and cannot be, legislated. That's done by social taboos and value reinforcements. And it'll vary within subcultures, so it would be folly to equate the government of a nation with the subcultures therein as if they were all one thing.

Oh really? then why did you turds force some bakers to bake a wedding cake for a couple of queers?

I didn't.

Go ahead Finger Boy --- prove me wrong.

Your ilk certainly did, and you defended it.

Once again Fingerboy lies. Maybe you should turn on the "Narrator " function to read for you, seeing as how you're incapable.

What I said was, PROVE ME WRONG.
You need an explanation for what the word "prove" means or what?

Better get busy, lying fuck.

No need to prove anythng. Everyone in this forum knows it's true.