Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[BasicHumanUnit]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

reason.com

The people who REALLY need to get and digest this message will never come here to read it.

You'd need a neon flashing billboard, endorsed by celebrities, at a Taylor Swift concert, while streaming on Tic Toc to reach that audience.

Here, you're either preaching to the choir or the already hopelessly gone.

 

[Curried Goats]

To understand your made up language?

English? You think I made up English? Are you ******* retarded?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My argument was to a libertarian and you got in the middle of it. It doesn't change just because you're a busy body.

Irrelevant. You made the claim to me that physical force is needed to physically force someone from property. Are you now saying this was not your argument?

In the way I meant it, yes. It means "to interfere with" like one object acting on another. How is this still confusing you, moron?

Except “not respect” is not an action. How is this still confusing you, moron?

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. You made the claim to me that physical force is needed to physically force someone from property. Are you now saying this was not your argument?

I'm saying it is and the context of it is that force for purposes other than self defense are unjust according to libertarians.

Except “not respect” is not an action. How is this still confusing you, moron?

The fact that it can be an action, Moron.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm saying it is and the context of it is that force for purposes other than self defense are unjust according to libertarians.

I don’t give a shit what your argument with libertarians is about, I’m addressing claims you made to ME and which you apparently believe.

The fact that it can be an action, Moron.

Okay, misleading word usage notwithstanding and putting aside its veracity or non-veracity, let’s run with that.

What does this mean to you in a moral, ethical, secular or extralegal sense? Is there something else being implied here?

 

[Curried Goats]

I don’t give a shit what your argument with libertarians is about, I’m addressing claims you made to ME and which you apparently believe.

What claims? That force is necessary in order to create subjective ownership of anything? Have you addressed that? You've spent more time fantasizing about my meaning of the word respect.

Okay, misleading word usage notwithstanding and putting aside its veracity or non-veracity, let’s run with that.

What does this mean to you in a moral, ethical, secular or extralegal sense? Is there something else being implied here?

It means nothing to me morally. I don't believe in objective morality. What it means to me is that according to libertarian philosophy private property would be unjust. Objectively speaking.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What claims? That force is necessary in order to create subjective ownership of anything? Have you addressed that? You've spent more time fantasizing about my meaning of the word respect.

Irrelevant. Your thing with libertarians has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.

It means nothing to me morally. I don't believe in objective morality. What it means to me is that according to libertarian philosophy private property would be unjust. Objectively speaking.

But do YOU think private property is unjust?

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. Your thing with libertarians has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.

But do YOU think private property is unjust?

What are we discussing? I'm discussing how force is necessary against others in order to create and maintain private ownership. You're discussing your fantasies about what you think I believe in but I don't really care about what you fantasize about.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What are we discussing? I'm discussing how force is necessary against others in order to create and maintain private ownership. You're discussing your fantasies about what you think I believe in but I don't really care about what you fantasize about.

Wrong. This discussion occurred over a period of weeks and went through many phases but it wasn’t until a couple of days ago I expressed my opinion that you meant the words literally. I still do by the way.

You didn’t answer the question: Do you think private property ownership is unjust?

 

[Curried Goats]

Wrong. This discussion occurred over a period of weeks and went through many phases but it wasn’t until a couple of days ago I expressed my opinion that you meant the words literally. I still do by the way.

You didn’t answer the question: Do you think private property ownership is unjust?

It doesn't matter how long this discussion has gone on for, my argument has been the same throughout.

As for your question I believe I've already answered that one. If by unjust you mean immoral then I've already told you that I don't believe in any objective morality.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It doesn't matter how long this discussion has gone on for, my argument has been the same throughout.

Never suggested otherwise. What I said was that I never suggested you meant the words literally until a few days ago.

As for your question I believe I've already answered that one. If by unjust you mean immoral then I've already told you that I don't believe in any objective morality.

My question was whether you see it as unjust in multiple contexts, i.e., in a moral, ethical, secular or extralegal sense.

But by now it’s clear to me that I’m not going to get a clear answer to this question so I guess we’re done.

 

[Curried Goats]

Never suggested otherwise. What I said was that I never suggested you meant the words literally until a few days ago.

I don't care when you decided to start make believing.

My question was whether you see it as unjust in multiple contexts, i.e., in a moral, ethical, secular or extralegal sense.

Then you should of explained that. Moral and ethics to me are the same. I don't know what the hell secular or extra legal mean in this context. The law says what the law says. If the law says slavery is legal that isn't extra legal that's just legal.

But by now it’s clear to me that I’m not going to get a clear answer to this question so I guess we’re done.

Bye *****.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I don't care when you decided to start make believing.

Okay. You made it sound like it was my argument the whole time when it wasn’t.

Then you should of explained that.

My question did exactly that.

Moral and ethics to me are the same. I don't know what the hell secular or extra legal mean in this context.

Are you kidding? Secular means worldly and apart from religious ideals. Extralegal simply means outside of or apart from considerations of law.

The question was posed in a way as to ask if you see private property as unjust in any context.
But as I said, you’re not going to answer because you probably do see it as unjust in some way but you also know that anything you say would be subjective.

The law says what the law says. If the law says slavery is legal that isn't extra legal that's just legal.

Jesus ******* Christ. “Extralegal” does not mean more legal you idiot. “Extra-“ is a prefix to indicate outside of or apart from the root word: extraterrestrial; extraordinary; extracurricular, etc..

Bye *****.

Bye dumbass.

 

[Curried Goats]

Okay. You made it sound like it was my argument the whole time when it wasn’t.


My question did exactly that.


Are you kidding? Secular means worldly and apart from religious ideals. Extralegal simply means outside of or apart from considerations of law.

The question was posed in a way as to ask if you see private property as unjust in any context.
But as I said, you’re not going to answer because you probably do see it as unjust in some way but you also know that anything you say would be subjective.


Jesus ******* Christ. “Extralegal” does not mean more legal you idiot. “Extra-“ is a prefix to indicate outside of or apart from the root word: extraterrestrial; extraordinary; extracurricular, etc..

Bye dumbass.

Why are you being such an emotional little *****? I've entertained all your stupid questions for months now. You're just mad because I'm not giving you the answer you're looking for and I was basically right. You're simply asking if I find property unjust or immoral and I don't. I said very early on in this discussion that I don't have any problem with the use of force to shape society as I see fit and I've told you repeatedly that I don't believe in any objective morality. It's hard for you believers in morality to wrap your head around the notion that some of us aren't bothered by it. I care about one thing. My family. If the rest of you have to get fucked for their benefit then that's just the way it has to be and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why are you being such an emotional little *****?

A rather emotional ***** response to my educating your ignorant ass on what “secular” means and the literary function of the “extra-“ prefix.

I've entertained all your stupid questions for months now.

The **** you have. You answered most of my questions with questions: “Is that subjective or objective?”; “What’s a right in this context?”.

You're just mad because I'm not giving you the answer you're looking for and I was basically right.

You haven’t provided an answer to that question. And what were you right about?

You're simply asking if I find property unjust or immoral and I don't. I said very early on in this discussion that I don't have any problem with the use of force to shape society as I see fit and I've told you repeatedly that I don't believe in any objective morality.

Yet you couched your arguments in terms that have nothing to do with ability to walk.

It's hard for you believers in morality to wrap your head around the notion that some of us aren't bothered by it.

You’re bothered by not having access to my resources, (whatever those are):

“The reality is property is created by law and government and ultimately society and we should democratically decide the limits of it. Should we allow a few people to own a majority of our natural resources? I don't think so.”

“The exclusive right to a resource to the extent that you can protect your claim to it with force. In this country the original creators would be our tyrant Founders.”

“Maybe I don't even want exclusive rights to said property and I just want to be able to freely access it. No one has to pay me for that. Nature provided all this abundance readily without asking anything of me.”

“you didn't pay me so you could have exclusive rights to this natural resource that we would all otherwise have access to.”

“..respecting my natural innate freedom to go where I please requires physical force against me whereas me not respecting your legal claim to natural resources does not.”

I care about one thing. My family. If the rest of you have to get fucked for their benefit then that's just the way it has to be and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Is this meant to convey that you don’t have your own ideas of morality? Because I happen to know you do. Your views on slavery prove that.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Curried Goats]

A rather emotional ***** response to my educating your ignorant ass on what “secular” means and the literary function of the “extra-“ prefix.

Because I don't know you mean with those words in that context?

Why do you seem to always forget context is a thing? I still don't know what you mean by extra legal. There's legal and illegal. What's extra legal? Is that like Legal +? Or Legal Max? It sounds like a streaming service.

The **** you have. You answered most of my questions with questions: “Is that subjective or objective?”; “What’s a right in this context?”.

Because your arguments make it seem like you don't understand the difference.

You haven’t provided an answer to that question. And what were you right about?

I did give you answer and I was right about this just ultimately being a question of morality.

Yet you couched your arguments in terms that have nothing to do with ability to walk.

What? Are you still confused over what my argument was?

You’re bothered by not having access to my resources, (whatever those are):

“The reality is property is created by law and government and ultimately society and we should democratically decide the limits of it. Should we allow a few people to own a majority of our natural resources? I don't think so.”

I do have access to your resources. That's the part of government where we decide what to spend on and who to tax to pay for it through the process of voting.

“The exclusive right to a resource to the extent that you can protect your claim to it with force. In this country the original creators would be our tyrant Founders.”

This is simply a fact. Slavers are tyrants. Maybe you're the one bothered by this fact?

“Maybe I don't even want exclusive rights to said property and I just want to be able to freely access it. No one has to pay me for that. Nature provided all this abundance readily without asking anything of me.”

You seem to think the argument starts with anything being your property. It doesn't. My argument is that property itself is a subjective idea made real through uses and threats of force. You keep trying to hide from addressing that argument by starting back from the premise that something is your property when my argument is about how it was able to become so. Try addressing that.

“you didn't pay me so you could have exclusive rights to this natural resource that we would all otherwise have access to.”

“..respecting my natural innate freedom to go where I please requires physical force against me whereas me not respecting your legal claim to natural resources does not.”

Is this meant to convey that you don’t have your own ideas of morality? Because I happen to know you do. Your views on slavery prove that.

No. Those are meant to convey that force is necessary to create private property. Why are you this stupid?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Because I don't know you mean with those words in that context?

I didn’t mean anything. They were offered as examples to try to get a sense of what you mean when you point out that it takes physical force to remove someone from your property.

I get the distinct impression that there’s a reason you bring this up and I find it hard to believe that you’re merely pointing out an obvious fact that physical force is needed to remove a trespasser who refuses to leave. I sense there is some kind of underlying implication and I’m trying to figure out what that is.

Do you view the private property owner as an aggressor in this case? An imposer of some kind? Some yahoo with a misguided sense of authority? What?

Why do you seem to always forget context is a thing?

Why do you seem to always forget your own context?

The context is private property and physically removing a trespasser from that property. The question is why you think physical force to remove a trespasser is significant enough for a weeks-long discussion.

I still don't know what you mean by extra legal. There's legal and illegal. What's extra legal? Is that like Legal +? Or Legal Max? It sounds like a streaming service.

I explained all that in my last post and even cited examples.

Because your arguments make it seem like you don't understand the difference.

No they don’t. i use subjective terms at times just as you do. It doesn’t mean I don’t know the difference.

I did give you answer and I was right about this just ultimately being a question of morality.

All you told me is that morality is subjective. But morality was not the only context I offered.

What? Are you still confused over what my argument was?

Are you confused about what “couched in terms” means?

I do have access to your resources. That's the part of government where we decide what to spend on and who to tax to pay for it through the process of voting.

So now you’re going to flip flop your argument again from talking about private property to taxes?

This is simply a fact. Slavers are tyrants. Maybe you're the one bothered by this fact?

First of all, “Tyrants” is a subjective term. Secondly, the point is that morality, to one degree or another, is at the root of your entire argument but you won’t admit it.

You seem to think the argument starts with anything being your property.

Never said or suggested any such thing.

It doesn't. My argument is that property itself is a subjective idea made real through uses and threats of force. You keep trying to hide from addressing that argument by starting back from the premise that something is your property when my argument is about how it was able to become so. Try addressing that.

Your argument also has a tinge of moral bias to it and that’s what I’m addressing.

I don’t give a shit that property is ultimately subjective. I’m perfectly fine with that but you appear not to be.

No. Those are meant to convey that force is necessary to create private property. Why are you this stupid?

Why are you so stupid as to not see I’m pointing at the moral foundation of your argument?

 

[Curried Goats]

I didn’t mean anything. They were offered as examples to try to get a sense of what you mean when you point out that it takes physical force to remove someone from your property.

My meaning isn't hard to sus out. It's F=MA.
I still don't know what extra legal means.

I get the distinct impression that there’s a reason you bring this up and I find it hard to believe that you’re merely pointing out an obvious fact that physical force is needed to remove a trespasser who refuses to leave. I sense there is some kind of underlying implication and I’m trying to figure out what that is.

It's not a mystery you moron. I've told you repeatedly. The reason I brought it up was to prove to dblack and the rest of the Libertarians that private property can only be created with threats and uses of force and would therefore be unjust according to the principles of libertarian philosophy that says force is only just in acts of self defense.

Do you view the private property owner as an aggressor in this case? An imposer of some kind? Some yahoo with a misguided sense of authority? What?

I view him objectively as someone using force to further their own interests. You keep using words to describe subjective feelings and I'm making an objective argument about what property ownership objectively is.

Why do you seem to always forget your own context?

I understand the context of which I argue F=MA perfectly well. Its you that's still confused after all this time.

The context is private property and physically removing a trespasser from that property. The question is why you think physical force to remove a trespasser is significant enough for a weeks-long discussion.

I think watching your confusion unfold is worth my time.

I explained all that in my last post and even cited examples.

I still don't know what extra legal is supposed to mean.

No they don’t. i use subjective terms at times just as you do. It doesn’t mean I don’t know the difference.

You use them like a monkey uses a typewriter. You can punch the keys but you dont understand what they're for.

All you told me is that morality is subjective. But morality was not the only context I offered.

Yeah, you offered secular and extra legal. Words I don't understand in this context. There's legal and illegal. Give me an example of something extra legal.

Are you confused about what “couched in terms” means?

Depends on the context.

So now you’re going to flip flop your argument again from talking about private property to taxes?

Thats a different argument you moron. One is an argument about how private property is created and the other about how it's regulated.

First of all, “Tyrants” is a subjective term.

It is not.

Definition of TYRANT

Are Slavers subjective or objective usurpers of sovereignty?

Secondly, the point is that morality, to one degree or another, is at the root of your entire argument but you won’t admit it.

I have admitted it you moron. It's just not my morality. I keep telling you that it's the morality of libertarian philosophy that force against other people for anything other than self defense is unjust.

Never said or suggested any such thing.

Your argument also has a tinge of moral bias to it and that’s what I’m addressing.

Describe where you find the morality in F=MA.

I don’t give a shit that property is ultimately subjective. I’m perfectly fine with that but you appear not to be.

I'm perfectly fine with that too. I've been describing it as such this whole time. You appear to be imagining things.

Why are you so stupid as to not see I’m pointing at the moral foundation of your argument?

Because you're too stupid to see you're pointing in the wrong direction even though I've been trying to give you those directions this entire time.

If you're looking for morality it's libertarian in nature and it's within the nature of their philosophy that I make my case against the justness of private property.

 

[DonGlock26]