The Glade 4.0

Which is orthogonal and irrelevant. It does not matter if members of an audience are antagonistic.

_________________

*Sigh* Really?

_________________

Do you display your exasperation due to an inability to comprehend meaning from context, or as a result of a worldview that does not value vocabulary?

_________________

I am heaving sighs at a pompous *** apparently

_________________

LOL.

You're making a **** ton of assumptions there that aren't true and aren't supported by my text.

The sentiments expressed in this clarification are not necessarily compatible, and are normally contradictory.

Aizle:

Really? I'm making assumptions? My observations aren't verified by your text? I don't think you're reading the same quote I am, then; after all, since it's apparently nuanced and subtle, I must be missing some implied meaning that somehow vacates the philosophical contradictions with your stated position and the reality you advocate. So, I'll give you a more complex textual analysis and you can tell me what "nuanced" definitions of words you're using and specify your position. Or, I can stand by my conclusion that the paragraph is just feel-good nonsense that doesn't accurately reflect the opinion you're having difficulty expressing.Alright, this is generally acceptable thesis statement, but it needs some explication:

1. "Equality under the law" is both ambivalent and ambiguous, as there are several levels of law that affect any given individual. Consequently, you should specify whether this is local law, state law, federal law, international law, common law, Constitutional Law, or Natural Law. After all, "equality under the law" in a philosophical sense can point to all, any, or none of these various laws that affect an individual. I could assume you're talking about law as statutes passed by various governments that concern an individual, but then we run into jurisdictional and equivalence problems.
2. Equality itself is still vague and nondescript. Equality has several general definitions that may or may not apply to the philosophical discussion. It has even more field specific definitions that may or may not apply to a philosophical discussion based on what brand of metaphysics and epistemology we want to engage. Consequently, I ask again, what do you mean by "equality"?You state this, but each of your examples in turn contradicts this statement.Wealth is very much a deciding factor in the ability of individuals to defend themselves from the charges brought against them. Consequently, to demand "sameness" in punishment indicates that one must demand "sameness" in defense. Even assuming any party compared is found guilty, why should the individual with a better lawyer not be able to argue for some degree of clemency or leniency in sentencing? Yet, by your own words, "the ... guy should get the same punishment that the ... guy does that the ... guy does that the ... guy does, etc." Despite your declaration, you are specifically requesting a sameness of outcome. In fact, you use a serial tautology to do so: a guy is a guy is a guy is a guy, etc.Once again, by your own admission, you're advocating a state of sameness. In this case, you also explicitly qualify that wealth should not be a determining factor in the state of the outcome: "quality education". Obviously, this requires redistributing monetary investment, much of it often voluntary, from high wealth concentrations to low wealth concentrations. It requires redistributing talent in the same way. And, more to the point, it demonstrably contradicts your overall qualifying standard: that outcomes should not be totally equal.The current standard already is already equal in the sense you've used it in every example. Your new standard merely changes the qualifying attribute from "opposite sex" to "person one loves". As such, it's still advocating a sameness of outcome, but remains mostly inconsequential and poorly chosen for the discussion at hand.Your final standard is ultimately the most self-defeating of them all. Quite simply, allowing a parent's wealth to affect the opportunities of even a single individual defeats it. The "same base opportunities" means that for equality to exist, in the sense you are using it as a measure of sameness, a parent cannot use their own accumulated wealth to affect the educational opportunity of their child; else, they do not indeed share the "same base opportunity" as someone else.

You have rejected the above arguments, but your language supports them quite clearly. Consequently, I return to my original series of questions: what is equality? Every example you've given is measured by the joint metrics of sameness and outcome. Since that is not the "nuanced" and "context" driven meaning you want, I again ask you to specify your position. If those statements do in fact constitute your opinion, then it is either internally inconsistent or focused on an equality of outcome and not an equality of opportunity.Except, I've made no assumptions. In fact, I'm only drawing conclusions based on the statements you have made. If you find them in error, then correct your examples and explication.

_________________

Structured equality and freedom conflict entirely with each other. The more "equality" is enforced, the more rigid society becomes. And the more likely it is to collapse... reminds me of all those socialist countries that mandated everyone to be paid equally. Look how that turned out.

[quote="shuyung']A brief Google search beginning with "audience " revealed "audience centered approach" in the first ten suggested searches. The conclusion drawn from this is that transmitting intended information is a desirable skill, enough so that a sufficient number of people have sought out information regarding how to do it to register highly in the collective. Which would imply that the worry amongst them is that their audience will not sufficiently comprehend, nor will interact to the extent necessary for comprehension.[/quote]

So what if enough have done it to "register highly in the collective"? You're basing that on it's prevalence amongst google searches? Not only is that a claim so vague as to be worthless, it is based on laughably suspect evidence.

It also does not establish that the worry is well-founded.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Before I even bother to go any further, what kind of grounding do you have in statistics and data mining?

Let's face it, I could go pull numbers, show you significance and effect size, but if you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of understanding it, it's meaningless anyway.

_________________

The very fact that every reconized dictionary in the English language contains multiple definitions for entries would indicate that it is not in fact a "precise" language but rather contextual.

_________________

You know what? I call bull ****. You're like a 12 year old. If you don't get that "equality", when discussing "citizenship" doesn't mean "exactly the same", then you're either really, really dumb, or being willfully ignorant.

Based on your history of 1) not being able to debate without turning the conversation into something you must try to "win", and 2) not being able to win an argument without first devolving it into a language/semantics DERAIL (I say derail because you're usually waaaay far away from any point that someone was trying to make), I've come to the conclusion that you're just being willfully retarded.

You KNOW that equality does not mean "exactly the same". You KNOW THIS. A 4 year old knows this.

Unless, and I ask again, do you think Thomas Jefferson believed it self-evident that all men were exactly the same in all aspects?

Learn to have a discussion without acting like a tool.

And how many words do you know the definition(s) for?

_________________

Precise and contextual are not mutually exclusive. Given context, those words still have a precise meaning.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Ok, I'm a mathmetician, and you're incorrect. Equal does not mean exactly the same.

Consider the equation:
X-Y=Z+4

X, Y, Z, and 4 can all be different numbers. Therefore the equations are not the "exactly the same", but they are always equal.

Not necessarily, but even if I agreed with you, in the context of "good citizenship" equality would still not mean "exactly the same".

Show your evidence. In the context of a philisophical discussion, which is what we are having, I have Smith, Locke, Jefferson, et al. on my side when it comes to definitions of terms.



I don't think you thought this through very well. All evidence points elsewhere.



When debating it is important to establish the perameters, else discussion is meaningless. Anyone who doesn't feel semantics are important to honest debate is intellectually lazy, or just isn't up to the task. I'll let you decide which applies to you.



I've come to the conclusion that you just don't have the strong of a grasp of the language, or the importance of specificity when choosing your words.



What does equal mean?



Jefferson clearly meant that all men were created equal under God, holding exactly the same rights, and that the divine right of kings did not exist. This is where context is important, and once again, equality shows itself to mean "exactly the same".



You give good advice... perhaps you should take it?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The exact same value. You're a lousy mathemetician if you couldn't work that one out yourself. Again, this is where specificity within context matters... but then you don't believe in that...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Provide another working definition.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, you don't. Because you say that equality is an antonym of freedom. If we are all "equal under God", how does this mean we are not free?



Yeah, I call bull ****.



No, derailing every conversation to get hung up on irrelevancies is an indication of some kind of internet hero strategy or social retardation. Sticking to the point and having an intelligent conversation is necessary to progress through a conversation. What applies to me is "not having or taking the time to deal with individuals who are being willfully obstructive to the conversation".



And yet you're the one claiming "equality" means exactly the same in all aspects, and claim it's an antonym of "freedom", then redefine it below such that it is neither of these.



I defined it above. Read.



In what way then is "equality" the antonym of "freedom"? If Jefferson believed we were all equal, was he just confused when he said we had the unalienable right of "liberty"?



No, I said without acting like a tool.

Yes, same value, but not exactly the same, as you clearly have different values. Are we talking "exactly the same" or "exactly the same value"?....

Arathain:

Is it your contention that the meaning of the word "equality" hasn't been purposely shifted over the last 50 years to mean something other than what in meant in the world of Thomas Jefferson?

As Khross posed earlier in the thread, what happened to the meaning of the word of Smith, Locke, and Jefferson? As I stated earlier, Jefferson's usage was deliberately constrained, and modified by other text, and the current events of the day to which his words were an answer. Equality as, as Jefferson used it, was not antonymous with freedom; as the specific equalities he spoke of (natural rights) established the framework for freedom. Equality, as the term has evolved, is.

Now, I suppose you feel I should argue Jefferson's meaning, only framed in Aizle's context... but then, that wouldn't make any sense, as Aizle intends something different from Jefferson. He has usurped the language, and is now trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. This is why semantics are important, no... essential, to debate.

In the modern sense equality refers to outcome, and legislated equality of outcome is institutionalized sameness. Institutionalized sameness is the antithesis of freedom, as freedom isn't such an important ideal if we are all to be the same. Freedom protects minority groups, and minority groups are defined by their lack of sameness.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post in the interests of going forward productively.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Math deals in value... what else could I have meant?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Why don't you just show your evidence and not worry about it?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I posted clear evidence from the dictionary indicating that there are no less than 10 definitions for the word "equal". Claiming that it has shifted "from" one definition "to" another is a complete red herring since it has always had multiple definitions.

Yes, in some cases it does mean equality of outcome, but you haven't shown that either in this case, or that it occurs in the majority of cases relating to socio-political matters. As for Jefferson, Locke, and who else may be "on your side" maybe you ought to stop appealing to authority too.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."