Equity is not Equality

[martybegan]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

Equity has a component that can be added to, equality cannot.

You mean like, righting a wrong?

at my expense, when I wasn't even born during the wrong, or had anything to do with it?

I agree that it should be more about this form of equality as equity:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not equality.

Not even if that form of equality requires equity? It took a Civil War to achieve equity instead of less expensive equality, in that case.

now you are just playing with words and not caring about the meaning of them.

Definition of EQUITY The definition pushed by the left is equity of outcome regardless of effort.

No it isn't. You right wingers are making that up and projecting on the left. The left knows how to read and understand words unlike the parrots on the right wing.

In law, the term "equity" refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures involved with civil law. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinguished from "legal" ones. While legal remedies typically involve monetary damages, equitable relief typically refers to injunctions, specific performance, or vacatur. A court will typically award equitable remedies when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate. For example, courts will typically award equitable relief for a claim which involves a particular or unique piece of real estate, or if the plaintiff requests specific performance.--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity

From the biggest word fucker upper on this board that is comical.

 

[martybegan]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

Equity has a component that can be added to, equality cannot.

You mean like, righting a wrong?

at my expense, when I wasn't even born during the wrong, or had anything to do with it?

I agree that it should be more about this form of equality as equity:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not equality.

Not even if that form of equality requires equity? It took a Civil War to achieve equity instead of less expensive equality, in that case.

now you are just playing with words and not caring about the meaning of them.

Definition of EQUITY The definition pushed by the left is equity of outcome regardless of effort.

I think it's worse, I think it's fake equality along the lines of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal in others."

Only because right wingers weren't equitable in the past.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Again you just hemorrhage bullshit.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

if the situation warrants it?

Raciss!!!

I am disabled how is a disability a racist subject?

Limiting equity to cases where "the situation warrants it" is obviously racist.

Why would you apply equity where it is not needed?

Don't ask me, ask those pushing for equity.

You mean like this branch of Government?

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,

The equity there is the way the law will work. It includes everyone. It is inclusive. The equity you want is selective and collectivist. Got that Commie?

How well did that work for John Henry? Fascist.

What does John Henry have to do with this? And what makes me a fascist? A few posts of mine would prove it. Do you have any of my fascist posts you can quote? All my posts are available on my profile page. Have at it.

That moron thinks Joe Biden wants to be fair and impartial.

Yes, a lot more fair and a lot more impartial than your guy was.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

Equity has a component that can be added to, equality cannot.

You mean like, righting a wrong?

at my expense, when I wasn't even born during the wrong, or had anything to do with it?

I agree that it should be more about this form of equality as equity:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not equality.

Not even if that form of equality requires equity? It took a Civil War to achieve equity instead of less expensive equality, in that case.

now you are just playing with words and not caring about the meaning of them.

Definition of EQUITY The definition pushed by the left is equity of outcome regardless of effort.

No it isn't. You right wingers are making that up and projecting on the left. The left knows how to read and understand words unlike the parrots on the right wing.

In law, the term "equity" refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures involved with civil law. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinguished from "legal" ones. While legal remedies typically involve monetary damages, equitable relief typically refers to injunctions, specific performance, or vacatur. A court will typically award equitable remedies when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate. For example, courts will typically award equitable relief for a claim which involves a particular or unique piece of real estate, or if the plaintiff requests specific performance.--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity

From the biggest word fucker upper on this board that is comical.

yes, you are by having nothing but ignorance and believing you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

Equity has a component that can be added to, equality cannot.

You mean like, righting a wrong?

at my expense, when I wasn't even born during the wrong, or had anything to do with it?

I agree that it should be more about this form of equality as equity:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not equality.

Not even if that form of equality requires equity? It took a Civil War to achieve equity instead of less expensive equality, in that case.

now you are just playing with words and not caring about the meaning of them.

Definition of EQUITY The definition pushed by the left is equity of outcome regardless of effort.

I think it's worse, I think it's fake equality along the lines of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal in others."

Only because right wingers weren't equitable in the past.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Again you just hemorrhage bullshit.

You have only fallacy not any form of reason. Why do you want to be taken seriously?

 

[Alan Stallion]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and their ilk tend to have things backwards, as the Critical Race Theory crowd would have it.

Here's an article I published in my church's newsletter recently inspired from a longer article from Darrell B. Harrison...

King Solomon was faced with an unusual dispute as written in 1 Kings 3:16-28. Two prostitutes were in a dispute about who was the rightful mother of a baby. Another baby had died and one of the mothers tried to claim another mother’s child as her own.

King Solomon came up with an idea. To settle the dispute, the baby would be cut in half and given to each mother. This would fulfill the concept of equality. Both mothers would have half a baby. Of course it would be a dead baby, but they’d be “equal” nonetheless. The reactions of each mother would be telling.

To one, this idea of “equality” was suitable. To the other, it was repulsive and she would rather have the baby live and be with the other woman than to have it killed. These reactions helped determine who really had the best interests of the child in mind to Solomon.

Solomon was more concerned with equity than equality. He was interested in objective truth than subjective outcomes. Justice was the prime interest, not fairness.

The word “equity” can be found in Psalm 9:8 where God decreed, “He rules the world in righteousness; and judges peoples with equity.”

The word equity in Psalm 9:8 is the Hebrew noun meyshar (מֵישָׁר). It is an architectural term that denotes straightness, levelness, and evenness in measurement. The word carries with it the concept of judging with a straight line, one that is devoid of ethical or moral defects, irregularities, or deformities, such as partiality, prejudice, or bias.

True biblical equality means that each person and situation is judged with equity, not partiality or favoritism. (see James 2:9) Truth must always be the goal, not outcomes.

 

[justinacolmena]

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Equity and debt are the two major forms of finance. Owning versus borrowing something.

Our betters, including financial advisor preachers sell us on 30-year mortgages, long term loans for brand new autos, and a “responsible” level of consumer credit.

They tell us equity is too risky, don't invest in the stock market or precious metals.

 

[justinacolmena]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house

Which is equity to the extent you own it free and clear.

my ex-coworker buying new cars and taking expensive vacations and then expecting to have his retirement funds supplemented so that he could enjoy the same quality of life that I sacrificed to achieve

That sounds like an ex-wife or ex-husband or something rather than an ex-co-worker unless that's a sex worker as opposed to a legitimate marriage.

 

[366h34d]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Equity is subjective equality

 

[martybegan]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

Equity has a component that can be added to, equality cannot.

You mean like, righting a wrong?

at my expense, when I wasn't even born during the wrong, or had anything to do with it?

I agree that it should be more about this form of equality as equity:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not equality.

Not even if that form of equality requires equity? It took a Civil War to achieve equity instead of less expensive equality, in that case.

now you are just playing with words and not caring about the meaning of them.

Definition of EQUITY The definition pushed by the left is equity of outcome regardless of effort.

No it isn't. You right wingers are making that up and projecting on the left. The left knows how to read and understand words unlike the parrots on the right wing.

In law, the term "equity" refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures involved with civil law. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinguished from "legal" ones. While legal remedies typically involve monetary damages, equitable relief typically refers to injunctions, specific performance, or vacatur. A court will typically award equitable remedies when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate. For example, courts will typically award equitable relief for a claim which involves a particular or unique piece of real estate, or if the plaintiff requests specific performance.--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity

From the biggest word fucker upper on this board that is comical.

yes, you are by having nothing but ignorance and believing you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

Good god you are a fucking retard.

 

[366h34d]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and their ilk tend to have things backwards, as the Critical Race Theory crowd would have it.

Here's an article I published in my church's newsletter recently inspired from a longer article from Darrell B. Harrison...

King Solomon was faced with an unusual dispute as written in 1 Kings 3:16-28. Two prostitutes were in a dispute about who was the rightful mother of a baby. Another baby had died and one of the mothers tried to claim another mother’s child as her own.

King Solomon came up with an idea. To settle the dispute, the baby would be cut in half and given to each mother. This would fulfill the concept of equality. Both mothers would have half a baby. Of course it would be a dead baby, but they’d be “equal” nonetheless. The reactions of each mother would be telling.

To one, this idea of “equality” was suitable. To the other, it was repulsive and she would rather have the baby live and be with the other woman than to have it killed. These reactions helped determine who really had the best interests of the child in mind to Solomon.

Solomon was more concerned with equity than equality. He was interested in objective truth than subjective outcomes. Justice was the prime interest, not fairness.

The word “equity” can be found in Psalm 9:8 where God decreed, “He rules the world in righteousness; and judges peoples with equity.”

The word equity in Psalm 9:8 is the Hebrew noun meyshar (מֵישָׁר). It is an architectural term that denotes straightness, levelness, and evenness in measurement. The word carries with it the concept of judging with a straight line, one that is devoid of ethical or moral defects, irregularities, or deformities, such as partiality, prejudice, or bias.

True biblical equality means that each person and situation is judged with equity, not partiality or favoritism. (see James 2:9) Truth must always be the goal, not outcomes.

Sry, my fellow Christian, Joe / Harris are doing exactly what Solomon was doing.

Assumption:
Solomon - one of the two prostitutes is the mother
Joe / Harris - some of the underserved individuals can achieve great thing if give an advantage,

Action:
Solomon - cut the baby in half and read the reactions of each mother.
Joe / Harris - give the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups.

Result
Solomon - Find the mother.
Joe / Harris - A diverse society (??)

In short, Joe / Harris are Randolph Duke and Mortimer Duke. Maybe, in the end, we can win a dollar.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

Equity has a component that can be added to, equality cannot.

You mean like, righting a wrong?

at my expense, when I wasn't even born during the wrong, or had anything to do with it?

I agree that it should be more about this form of equality as equity:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not equality.

Not even if that form of equality requires equity? It took a Civil War to achieve equity instead of less expensive equality, in that case.

now you are just playing with words and not caring about the meaning of them.

Definition of EQUITY The definition pushed by the left is equity of outcome regardless of effort.

No it isn't. You right wingers are making that up and projecting on the left. The left knows how to read and understand words unlike the parrots on the right wing.

In law, the term "equity" refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures involved with civil law. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinguished from "legal" ones. While legal remedies typically involve monetary damages, equitable relief typically refers to injunctions, specific performance, or vacatur. A court will typically award equitable remedies when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate. For example, courts will typically award equitable relief for a claim which involves a particular or unique piece of real estate, or if the plaintiff requests specific performance.--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity

From the biggest word fucker upper on this board that is comical.

yes, you are by having nothing but ignorance and believing you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

Good god you are a fucking retard.

lol. Not as much as you right wingers. If it weren't for fallacy, y'all would have no arguments at all.

 

[martybegan]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

Equity has a component that can be added to, equality cannot.

You mean like, righting a wrong?

at my expense, when I wasn't even born during the wrong, or had anything to do with it?

I agree that it should be more about this form of equality as equity:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not equality.

Not even if that form of equality requires equity? It took a Civil War to achieve equity instead of less expensive equality, in that case.

now you are just playing with words and not caring about the meaning of them.

Definition of EQUITY The definition pushed by the left is equity of outcome regardless of effort.

No it isn't. You right wingers are making that up and projecting on the left. The left knows how to read and understand words unlike the parrots on the right wing.

In law, the term "equity" refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures involved with civil law. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinguished from "legal" ones. While legal remedies typically involve monetary damages, equitable relief typically refers to injunctions, specific performance, or vacatur. A court will typically award equitable remedies when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate. For example, courts will typically award equitable relief for a claim which involves a particular or unique piece of real estate, or if the plaintiff requests specific performance.--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity

From the biggest word fucker upper on this board that is comical.

yes, you are by having nothing but ignorance and believing you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

Good god you are a fucking retard.

lol. Not as much as you right wingers. If it weren't for fallacy, y'all would have no arguments at all.

you are a word salad nitwit.

 

[Burgermeister]

Equity in the Biden/Kamala sense is just another pretend goal communists use to divide and agitate while they gather power.

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers should have better free market capitalism solutions instead of their usual whinery.