Give me one good reason not to be an egalitarian that isn't edgy, retarded, or chalked up to semantics
Pic highly related
>>1070897
that's utilitarianism
not egalitarianism
get your ism's right
>>1070907
Ayy you're right. My bad
Still a funny pic though.
>>1070886
Huh I wonder what happened to TBFP.
Have they gone to shit completely?
>>1070920
thats subjective.
>>1070897
What that bothers me is that this picture will probably be posted against people who argue that things that don't harm anyone else should be legal.
>>1071145
>harming
>relevant
Lolbertarian pls go
>>1071154
>Being a libertarian is bad
What are you OP?
>>1071175
Lolbertarianism is retarded as we don't own our bodies, God owns them and we're just tenants.
>>1071182
>God owns them
He can feel free to exert that control any time he wants. Until that time, I'll continue to mock him.
>>1071182
I will assume you are joking and laugh with you.
>>1071195
And I will continue you to mock your muh bodily sovereignty and muh NAP pussy ass concepts
>>1071213
>implying spooks
You believe in something that is very silly.
>>1071223
>spooks
Back to /lit/ autist
Here's what I call the leveling-down argument.
Say we have a country with 2 kinds of people. Kind 1 has 200 units of welfare per person. Kind 2 has 100 units of welfare per person.
An egalitarian would be required to believe that this is a country with an unjust distribution of justice. He could solve this in many ways, but no matter what, the only criterion that matters for him, as far as justice is concerned, is that everybody have equal welfare. Everyone in group 1 could lose 100 points of welfare, and the egalitarian would think that this is as fair as if group 2's welfare were increased by 100 points per person. Similarly, a situation in which everyone is reduced to having 50 points of welfare is a situation in which everybody is equal, but in which everybody has been deprived of significant quantities of welfare.
What's the point of all this? The point is that egalitarianism makes no more sense than any other ethical position.
Don't take my word for it, I'm paraphrasing Parfit.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-eg/
>>1071182
Lol this is a joke right? No religious people unironically believe they should have no freedom because they have a creator
>>1071244
But thats taking it to an extreme. Like assuming all egalitarians are robots. its more making sure everyone has the potential to be equal in society, and if some people require more in order to be equal than they might need it.
Its like saying egalitarians would lobotomize everyone so that we are on equal footing with retards. It would be easier and less awful to make institutions that assist the mentally disabled adapt to life.
The obvious fact people aren't equal, or all the chimps out it caused as ideologue
>>1070886
Niggers are less than human and should be treated as such.
Non-muslims are cursed by God himself and should be treated as such.
Non-Christians are in rebellion against God and should be treated as such.
Non-Jews are cattle placed on the Earth to serve Jews and should be treated as such.
>>1071260
Itmeans that God is the creator therefore he makes rules. The sort of moronic MUH BODY MUH RULES lolbertarian delusion does not apply.
>>1071274
What if two guys wanna fuck each other in their own private bedroom?
>>1071280
No, God says no buttfucking.
>>1071283
So, we should just let God sort it out? No need for society to do anything?
no people are equal so why would you be an egalitarian
>>1071294
Proof?
>>1071318
do you want me to prove to you that people are different
>>1070886
all humans are sapient beings
>>1071323
I want you to prove to me that, excluding circumstances where people are physically or in the case of retardation, mentally incapable or doing something, that some people are incapable of the potential to do things someone else can do.
I understand that some rando with no experience can't paint like van gogh, but my question is if there are people who don't have potential.
>>1071283
Aw, come on. Admit it. Buttfucking is fun.
>>1071283
God is a faggot then
>>1071336
potential is an illusion caused by the view of the present
and as far as political organization goes, are you saying you can make a master out of every man? can your egalitarianism bring out the van gogh in everyone, or even more than every other system? because it looks to me like it only succeeds in producing mediocrity, though thankfully it hasn't gain controlled of all reality
the question now important is, how is a genius created?
>>1071367
My job as an egalitarian is to make everyone have equal potential, to make them have to potential to be van gogh. It is not to make them into van gogh by force, as skill and being successful is the job of the individual, not the state or people.
>>1070886
Egalitarian in what sense? I think everyone believes in some degree of natural inequality and that social reward/status should reflect that. Most just think capitalism is a very poor system of rewarding people.
>>1070886
>Give me one good reason not to be an egalitarian that isn't edgy, retarded, or chalked up to semantics
>>1071182
>edgy
>>1071270
>retarded
>>1071412
>chalked up to semantics
Good thread
>>1071397
That has nothing to do with egalitarianism, the chinese and romans broadened bureaucrat applications 2,500 years ago
>>1071427
>hur hur let's handwave meaning
I'm asking OP to specify you dunce. Egalitarian means a lot of things. I can't answer him unless he's more clear.
>>1071397
and you will make everyone have the potential to be van gogh and a scientist and a philosopher and a king and a farmer and a priest and a teacher and a soldier and a general and a plumber and a lawyer and a poet and a mother? and all these different necessary people are going to be created by by equal treatment? and are not some of these people made in a more effective fashion by their UNequal treatment? are you not just going to create a breed of mediocre neurotics with your egalitarianism? and what is the worth in the act of equal treatment itself?
>>1071434
>That has nothing to do with egalitarianism
We are getting into semantics here, so can we agree that egalitarianism is the belief that everyone aught to be equal?
If so, then everyone should have the equal right to be who they want to be.
It is a proven fact however, that some peoples have institutionalized inequality, making it much more difficult for some people to be equal to others in their field, and as an egalitarian, that repulses me.
>>1071440
my description applies
>>1070886
You'll call it edgy, but nothing is equal.
Or you can even just say that "equal" is subjective.
>>1071182
wew lad, you're making it too obvious.
>>1071463
>We are getting into semantics here, so can we agree that egalitarianism is the belief that everyone aught to be equal?
If so, then everyone should have the equal right to be who they want to be.
It is a proven fact however, that some peoples have institutionalized inequality, making it much more difficult for some people to be equal to others in their field, and as an egalitarian, that repulses me.
I disagree. We simply can't have everyone doing what they want. Society will always people to clean toilets, and there's simply not enough for people to do if everyone got to pick.
Not everyone can be a zoo vet. Some of those vets have to care for animals in slaughter yards. Not everyone can be an executive, some people need to clean toilets.
While I agree with you that, overall, restricting roles based on social class is wrong and we need to eliminate the obscenely wealthy classes aroun the world, we still need some system that convinces people to do the jobs that nobody wants to do.
>>1070886
Because of their disgusting biological evolution a certain half of all human can't be egalitarian. Woman are bound by Nature and will never free themselfs from it.
>>1071244
> An egalitarian would be required to believe that this is a country with an unjust distribution of justice. He could solve this in many ways, but no matter what, the only criterion that matters for him, as far as justice is concerned, is that everybody have equal welfare.
what the fuck are you talking about
>>1071270
All people not being equal is a poor argument for that not all people should be equal before the law.
>>1071451
I, myself as one man would be quite challenged to do so myself, but, because I also believe that every little bit helps, I will try to advocate anything that align with this belief. At a certain point, success is the object of the individual, and if they decided not to be successful, then they can be place in the what you call "unequal" position, of their own choosing. What I advocate is institutional equality, where everyone CAN be equal if they work hard enough, not individual equality where everyone IS absolutely equal, as this is impossible.
>>1071488
You are correct.
As I see it, success is the individuals job, and as long as they work hard, they may be able to reach their goals. We do need out public workers and as such people will have to take those job, but it should be of their own fault, not of the state or institution.
>>1071538
So then you agree with me that any healthy society has a minimum of meritocracy
>>1071560
Yeah
>>1071529
>dude just work really hard at it and you too can become a genius
wow
and in the end, what purpose does this policy serve? nothing but itself, "people should be treated equally because uhmm"
do you create a wealthier society? do you create more great men? do you create a powerful empire? do you create more happiness?
why should people be treated equally by the state?
>>1071283
>makes people gay
>punishes them accordingly
""""nice""" guy your """god."""
>>1071582
More pleasure in total and less suffering than in a unequal institution.
A more cohesive political structure and more happy people who are willing to work their jobs, because they KNOW its their fault and not the states.
Larger and more productive work force.
Better educated populous which means more great men and women and smarter voting/political activism.
>>1071569
Cool. Then we are in total agreement.
>>1071582
You have yet stated the benefits of whatever you advocate
In fact, you have yet to state what you advocate at all
>>1071601
is pleasure divorced from suffering? isn't water more refreshing for the thirsty and food not more delicious for the hungry? what if this modern western society is just satisfied with the easy, hollow pleasures? and is it the fault of the mediocre for being mediocre? why are you so happy to blame? is the work force being larger good? can not the work force be too large, swallowing up the non-working classes? isn't a job and obstacle for potential geniuses and other higher men? did the greeks work 9-5? can all people use an education? will not filling the universities and other intellectual spheres with everyone of voting age not make it less refined? do we live in a world with more great men and women than ever before? why were the greeks so great? they weren't egalitarian.
>>1071613
i don't believe in political systems, they are not the world as much as they try to be
>>1071674
are you trying to use a Gish Gallop or are you seriously expecting me to go through each individual question?
>>1071704
respond to whatever you feel like
your post had several different points i wanted to remark on so I made several different questions
