Fairness: Liberal vs Conservative

[_Gadianton]

One more thing, I had lunch with a friend recently. This guy is the hardest working, most dedicated, and truly visionary person I know. He's also a member of the 47%. And he's a millionare. I do know he's done quite a lot of charity work and he's also big into helping others succeed. Not sure whose side of the fence he supports, just a bizarre random variable.

[_bcspace]

Liberals tend to be more open-minded to new ideas

This has never been true. Liberals, never learning from history, keep trying to bring back the same old evils of authoritarian dictatorship and a host of immoralities in the guise of compassion.

[_beastie]

Liberals are also open to accepting evidence from science and peer-reviewed studies. Conservatives, not so much.

[_Gadianton]

Liberals, never learning from history,..

"learning from history" is a Marxist idea, and at the root of Keynes's philosophy. The annointed, as Droopy calls them, "learn from history", and thereby guide the unwashed masses through market failures. You're preaching liberal ideology. Modern advocates of markets preach rational expectations, which dismiss the lessons from history as already accounted for in the projection of market agents. If you do not believe that market agents behave this way, then you imply they are not rational, and thereby imply government intervention is at least on the table.

When you and Droops are ready to learn real free-market economics, just let me know, and i'll teach you.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius, I would like to know more about how when Thomas Jefferson drafted Article I of the Constitution, he meant that every human being has the same socioeconomic background, the same innate talents, and the same absence of handicaps when he said "all men are created equal."

beyond the choice of the word "equal" there is little else that needs to offered....it is rather definitive.
if you are proposing that another meaning was intended, then please support that position...otherwise i am content with the notion that Jefferson, and the others, were aware of what the word "equal" meant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal

i like how you define "equal" as meaning NOT the same...gives you a lot of leverage with your argument.
The other references i provided, in addition to this one, clearly answer the poster's question and affirm my original claim.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius, you really ought to take a class or two in formal logic. I'd recommend prop logic and quantfier logic. If you did, you'd understand why your translation of what beastie said is nonsense. "Not all X are Y" is not equivalent to "no X are Y."

And you really should take a course in evidence, too. The documents you cite are no more evidence that, in fact, every person is born with equal ability and opportunity than is the latest issue of Spiderman.

i never said it was a "fact"...if you bothered to read the post and actually refrain from revising what "is surely meant" in your own head you would know that i simply claimed it was "common sense"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
and as such that is not a question of what is "factual"
and as such the documents i listed are evidence of the "common sense" claim.

i suggest you take a class in reading.

[_Res Ipsa]

Subgenius, you really ought to take a class or two in formal logic. I'd recommend prop logic and quantfier logic. If you did, you'd understand why your translation of what beastie said is nonsense. "Not all X are Y" is not equivalent to "no X are Y."

And you really should take a course in evidence, too. The documents you cite are no more evidence that, in fact, every person is born with equal ability and opportunity than is the latest issue of Spiderman.

i never said it was a "fact"...if you bothered to read the post and actually refrain from revising what "is surely meant" in your own head you would know that i simply claimed it was "common sense"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
and as such that is not a question of what is "factual"
and as such the documents i listed are evidence of the "common sense" claim.

i suggest you take a class in reading.

You do go through the most impressive gymnastics to defend nonsense. The documents you state are aspirational: they state the author's opinions of how the world should work. Did Jefferson really believe that a slave in America in fact had the same opportunities and abilities as he did? None of the documents you cite purport to have studied and evaluated Beastie's factual implication that not all people are, in fact, not born with equal abilities and opportunities. In fact, none of them address Beastie's specific factual implication. You got a two-fer this time: non sequitur and appeal to authority/popularity.

[_Res Ipsa]

Subgenius, I would like to know more about how when Thomas Jefferson drafted Article I of the Constitution, he meant that every human being has the same socioeconomic background, the same innate talents, and the same absence of handicaps when he said "all men are created equal."

beyond the choice of the word "equal" there is little else that needs to offered....it is rather definitive.
if you are proposing that another meaning was intended, then please support that position...otherwise i am content with the notion that Jefferson, and the others, were aware of what the word "equal" meant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal

i like how you define "equal" as meaning NOT the same...gives you a lot of leverage with your argument.
The other references i provided, in addition to this one, clearly answer the poster's question and affirm my original claim.

The Declaration of Independence itself undercuts sub's argument. The reason the declaration is necessary in the first place is that, in fact, not all people were experiencing equal rights because of the actions of the British Government. So, at the time the declaration was written, Jefferson in fact believed the same as beastie: in practice, everyone did not have the same opportunities. (Of course, Jefferson does not address ability.)

[_Darth J]

Subgenius, I would like to know more about how when Thomas Jefferson drafted Article I of the Constitution, he meant that every human being has the same socioeconomic background, the same innate talents, and the same absence of handicaps when he said "all men are created equal."

beyond the choice of the word "equal" there is little else that needs to offered....it is rather definitive.
if you are proposing that another meaning was intended, then please support that position...otherwise i am content with the notion that Jefferson, and the others, were aware of what the word "equal" meant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal

i like how you define "equal" as meaning NOT the same...gives you a lot of leverage with your argument.
The other references i provided, in addition to this one, clearly answer the poster's question and affirm my original claim.

Subgenius:

"All men are created equal" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. It is not found in the Constitution. It's sad that you don't know the source of one of the most famous maxims in U.S. history.

Your dictionary link provides several alternative definitions of "equal."

1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.
3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.
4. uniform in operation or effect: equal laws.
5. adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree: The supply is equal to the demand.

The Declaration of Independence talks about "equal" in terms of natural rights. This is the sense of "equal" under definition #4 from your link.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The principle stated in the Declaration of Independence means that, for example, Dwayne Wade and I both have the same right to freedom of expression, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom to vote, and so on. It does not mean that I am as good a basketball player as Dwayne Wade is.

You are taking the sense of "equal" in terms of everyone having the same natural rights to be free from governmental tyranny and trying to say that this means "equal" in terms of everyone having the same intelligence, educational opportunities, physical prowess, etc. You are trying to make a point by shifting the meaning of a word from what it means in a specific context to what it means in an entirely different context. This technique is known as the fallacy of equivocation.

[_Darth J]

Liberals are also open to accepting evidence from science and peer-reviewed studies. Conservatives, not so much.

Beastie, I think this is an overly broad statement. People who are committed to a particular ideology are open to accepting what they want to hear. Neither conservatives nor liberals are immune to that.

Also, the idea that we should help people in proportion to what they need is not a fact. It is a value judgment. It's a value judgment I generally agree with, but there's a lot of nuance in how this should be attempted and for whom it should be attempted. Unfortunately, Droopy and bcspace are very strongly implying that any efforts to help disadvantaged people amount to socialism. They are committing the continuum fallacy.