Because when it's your turn to be disenfranchised, you won't have a leg on which to stand. Once you've admitted disenfranchising people is okay in principle, everything else is arguing over the criteria. Believe me, there are a lot of people who would put your enfranchisement on the chopping block before Perry's.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 6, 2025, 10:03 pm
Thread Rating:
Atheism Leads to Inequality
|
This is my problem with democracy. While I do think democracy is the best system, I think it could use some improvement. Perhaps if all those who vote for people like Perry were disenfranchised & sterilized democracy would work a lot better.
(January 20, 2014 at 9:21 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: Of course all people aren't equal & to treat them as if they were is stupid. Should Rick Perry be treated equally compared to Christopher Hitchens? I would say no, not even under the law. He should of course be treated fairly, but is it really fair that Einstein & Perry are equal under the law? Absolutely. Rick Perry is a scumbag, but treating him less than equal in the eyes of the law, or going straight to outright atrocities against him and those like him, invites (at the least) proportionate retribution in the instance that people who think like him achieve power in the future. I don't think it's necessary to be proactive against the likes of a guy like Rick Perry. Time is not on the side of the regressives. (January 22, 2014 at 5:12 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:That is why we must be strong! We mustn't let the idiocy Perryites to ever come to power. We must sterilize them & ensure they die off so that they never come to power.(January 20, 2014 at 9:21 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: Of course all people aren't equal & to treat them as if they were is stupid. Should Rick Perry be treated equally compared to Christopher Hitchens? I would say no, not even under the law. He should of course be treated fairly, but is it really fair that Einstein & Perry are equal under the law? RE: Atheism Leads to Inequality
January 22, 2014 at 5:56 pm
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2014 at 5:57 pm by Angrboda.)
(January 22, 2014 at 4:50 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote:(January 22, 2014 at 4:47 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Sure, I was just happening by and noticed the lure. 'Equal under the law' means to be treated by the government as if they have the same rights. They absolutely should be treated as equal under the law.Why? Should Eisenstein not be given more rights that Perry? In my opinion those with a less than average IQ should be disenfranchised. The esteemed 19th century scientist Sir Francis Galton was a brilliant man, but much like you, he felt that enfranchising the common man and the vulgar led to worse decisions than would be arrived at if the decision making process was left to those most capable, intellectually. In an attempt to prove his thesis, he conducted an experiment. At a fair one year, he put a large pig on display and asked people to guess its weight. The results of this guessing contest were that, yes, there were plenty of wild guesses sprinkled among the more reasonable guesses, but on average, the high guesses canceled the low, and vice versa, such that the average of all guesses was quite close to the actual weight of the pig. The assumed moral is that, while people who are not of homogenously high intellect and capability may produce spurious solutions, the net effect of all the common and the vulgar working together produces the desired effect. If you were to artificially limit this process by excluding some, and giving greater rights to others, all you would be doing is undermining the robustness of this statistical effect and in effect causing the production of worse decisions rather than better.
There is a difference between equality and justice. We seek justice because nature (or God) made us unequal. A handicapped person needs more care than a healthy one. A strong person can harm a weak person so you should give more protection to the weak. A talented person is more fruitful than a mediocre one so you should give more chances and opportunities to the talented and facilitate the way for him.
Even mathematically and physically if you have two cups one of 0.25 liter capacity and the other is 0.5 liter and you want to "fairly" fill them you will give the second cup twice what you will give the first. People are like cups, they are humanly equal but unequal in their needs and abilities.
* Illusion is a big world ... and the world is a bigger illusion.
* Try to live happy ... try to make others live happy.
I am definitely in favour of treating everyone as equal before the law. The left as as bad as the right in this instance since they want the law to favour certain minority groups
Find better friends.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Atheism VS Christian Atheism? | IanHulett | 80 | 30482 |
June 13, 2017 at 11:09 am Last Post: vorlon13 |
|
Atheism, Scientific Atheism and Antitheism | tantric | 33 | 13891 |
January 18, 2015 at 1:05 pm Last Post: helyott |
|
Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism | Dystopia | 26 | 12883 |
August 30, 2014 at 1:34 pm Last Post: Dawsonite |
|
Debate share, young earth? atheism coverup? atheism gain? | xr34p3rx | 13 | 11002 |
March 16, 2014 at 11:30 am Last Post: fr0d0 |
|
The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief | little_monkey | 35 | 15473 |
July 26, 2013 at 11:42 am Last Post: genkaus |
|
A different definition of atheism. Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in god/s | fr0d0 | 14 | 12607 |
August 1, 2012 at 2:54 pm Last Post: Mister Agenda |
|
"Old" atheism, "New"atheism, atheism 3.0, WTF? | leo-rcc | 69 | 40911 |
February 2, 2010 at 3:29 am Last Post: tackattack |
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)