Equity is not Equality

[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.

He worked his ass off but received no capital reward. Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Your fantasy definition is just that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, 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.

Only if you ignore the meaning of equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

From our own Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one is claiming that branch of Government is about the special pleading form of equity presented by that author.

In the legal framework equity does not mean what you think it means. Equity has nothing to do with equality. It doesn't mean fair or impartial.

In law, equity refers to legal remedies that do not have a monetary value. Restraining orders, specific performance are examples of equitable remedies.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

He worked his ass off but received no capital reward. Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Your fantasy definition is just that.

Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

And that is exactly what your are advocating for.

 

[danielpalos]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, 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.

Only if you ignore the meaning of equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

From our own Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one is claiming that branch of Government is about the special pleading form of equity presented by that author.

In the legal framework equity does not mean what you think it means. Equity has nothing to do with equality. It doesn't mean fair or impartial.

In law, equity refers to legal remedies that do not have a monetary value. Restraining orders, specific performance are examples of equitable remedies.

This is the definition, Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial. It doesn't require Capital or Capitalism to be equitable. I agree with you there.

 

[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.

He worked his ass off but received no capital reward. Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Your fantasy definition is just that.

Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

And that is exactly what your are advocating for

Projecting much? I cited a dictionary not an author, being special in his pleading.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

He worked his ass off but received no capital reward. Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Your fantasy definition is just that.

Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

And that is exactly what your are advocating for

Projecting much? I cited a dictionary not an author, being special in his pleading.

When is the last time you saw anything impartial? A definition is a definition, not reality. Reality awaits you. Stop being intolerant of those who disagree.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, 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.

Only if you ignore the meaning of equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

From our own Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one is claiming that branch of Government is about the special pleading form of equity presented by that author.

In the legal framework equity does not mean what you think it means. Equity has nothing to do with equality. It doesn't mean fair or impartial.

In law, equity refers to legal remedies that do not have a monetary value. Restraining orders, specific performance are examples of equitable remedies.

This is the definition, Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

It is not the legal definition. Look it up. When the constitution speaks of cases in law and equity it is referring to cases in law that have a monetary value or in equity that have no monetary value.

Equity

www.law.cornell.edu

.

 

[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.

He worked his ass off but received no capital reward. Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Your fantasy definition is just that.

Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

And that is exactly what your are advocating for

Projecting much? I cited a dictionary not an author, being special in his pleading.

When is the last time you saw anything impartial? A definition is a definition, not reality. Reality awaits you. Stop being intolerant of those who disagree.

You were being more intolerant than myself. Did you know there is a Religious technical term for that?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

He worked his ass off but received no capital reward. Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Your fantasy definition is just that.

Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

And that is exactly what your are advocating for

Projecting much? I cited a dictionary not an author, being special in his pleading.

Stop using the K through 5 dictionary.

 

[danielpalos]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, 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.

Only if you ignore the meaning of equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

From our own Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one is claiming that branch of Government is about the special pleading form of equity presented by that author.

In the legal framework equity does not mean what you think it means. Equity has nothing to do with equality. It doesn't mean fair or impartial.

In law, equity refers to legal remedies that do not have a monetary value. Restraining orders, specific performance are examples of equitable remedies.

This is the definition, Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

It is not the legal definition. Look it up. When the constitution speaks of cases in law and equity it is referring to cases in law that have a monetary value or in equity that have no monetary value.

Equity

www.law.cornell.edu

.

I agree with you that equity does not require Capital or Capitalism. It is about doing what should be considered Right regardless of which wing we are on.

 

[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.

He worked his ass off but received no capital reward. Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Your fantasy definition is just that.

Only fascists make up their own definitions that have no basis.

And that is exactly what your are advocating for

Projecting much? I cited a dictionary not an author, being special in his pleading.

Stop using the K through 5 dictionary.

The right wing really is that dumb. It can be a challenge to dumb things down for right wingers, doing what comes natural.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, 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.

Only if you ignore the meaning of equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

From our own Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one is claiming that branch of Government is about the special pleading form of equity presented by that author.

In the legal framework equity does not mean what you think it means. Equity has nothing to do with equality. It doesn't mean fair or impartial.

In law, equity refers to legal remedies that do not have a monetary value. Restraining orders, specific performance are examples of equitable remedies.

This is the definition, Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

It is not the legal definition. Look it up. When the constitution speaks of cases in law and equity it is referring to cases in law that have a monetary value or in equity that have no monetary value.

Equity

www.law.cornell.edu

.

I agree with you that equity does not require Capital or Capitalism. It is about doing what should be considered Right regardless of which wing we are on.

I KNEW I was wasting my time With the completely brain deprived.

 

[danielpalos]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, 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.

Only if you ignore the meaning of equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

From our own Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one is claiming that branch of Government is about the special pleading form of equity presented by that author.

In the legal framework equity does not mean what you think it means. Equity has nothing to do with equality. It doesn't mean fair or impartial.

In law, equity refers to legal remedies that do not have a monetary value. Restraining orders, specific performance are examples of equitable remedies.

This is the definition, Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

It is not the legal definition. Look it up. When the constitution speaks of cases in law and equity it is referring to cases in law that have a monetary value or in equity that have no monetary value.

Equity

www.law.cornell.edu

.

I agree with you that equity does not require Capital or Capitalism. It is about doing what should be considered Right regardless of which wing we are on.

I KNEW I was wasting my time With the completely brain deprived.

You are a dear. Legal remedies are about Capital not the "social use of force of the State".

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

It is wrong to help people according to you?

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means 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.

Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government | The White House

Equal opportunity is the bedrock of American democracy, and our diversity is one of our country's greatest strengths. But for too many, the American Dream remains out of reach.

www.whitehouse.gov

No one is saying it's wrong to help others.

You're free to give everything you have to help others if you so choose and hopefully there'll be a sainthood if the future for you.

However be sure to give your stuff and keep your and the governments hands out of my pocket book.

*****SMILE*****

 

[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.

It is wrong to help people according to you?

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means 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.

Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government | The White House

Equal opportunity is the bedrock of American democracy, and our diversity is one of our country's greatest strengths. But for too many, the American Dream remains out of reach.

www.whitehouse.gov

definitions and applications are two different things. by singling out groups you aren't talking about equality, you are talking about favoritism.

Equity is something added or earned, or in this case given to whoever is higher up the pity pole.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.