The point is the difference between equity and fairness. The capabilities approach goes a long way to sorting out our choices. — Banno

It doesn't seem like the distinction you're proposing is holding up to analysis, but we'd have to explore it in more detail.

Neither does the west. Just because we aren't actively throwing gay people off buildings or performing public executions does not mean the west is significantly better. — Anaxagoras

What are "we" doing to gay people that even comes close to throwing them off buildings or performing public executions?! That's an outrageous comment to make. Of course hate crimes against gay people still occur. Some gay people end up getting murdered for being gay. But it doesn't even come close to the situation in certain places in the Middle East and Africa. I remember a campaign about trying to get school children to think about using the word "gay" as an insult. That's an indication of the level of development we're at. Your comment isn't just clueless, it is downright offensive.

Just how far gone are you? You cannot see that throwing people from buildings IS FAR worse than a beating, and the rarity of the occurrence (or any act of bigotry towards gays) in the two cultures are not even close. Instead what do you do? Jump track to the False Equivalence Express. Staggering. — DingoJones

Staggering indeed.

No, its not a double standard. The standards are different between the two cultures. One is much worse on the gay issue. Clearly, much, much worse. Its not even a part of the culture in the west, its bad actors who are actively condemned by the culture who do it. In many Muslim countries it is supported by the culture, or a blind eye turned. Russian culture too. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. — DingoJones

:100:

@Banno

The term "equality" isn't the best term, either, actually. I agree with you on that. The term "proportionality" is better, and I have used it before in place of the term "equality".

In your picture where each individual can see over the fence, they each have the right proportional adjustment, which leads to a better outcome.

Wealth proportionality would be a good thing. We don't have it. It is out of proportion, and grossly so in some cases. This is an injustice. I don't think you have the best understanding of Marxism.

Does such “proportionality” require handicaps to those with height?

Does such “proportionality” require handicaps to those with height? — I like sushi

In what context?

If people cannot be lifted up are you for pulling others down?

If people cannot be lifted up are you for pulling others down? — I like sushi

In what context?! Economically, yes. I am far from neo-liberalism, and I have little sympathy for the 1%. I would jump at a chance to pull them down.

1% on what scale? You’re right ask about context so it’d help if you gave some regarding whether you think the 1% matters on a nation, international, global, or other scale. I’m assuming you don’t mean global or you’d have to include a lack of sympathy for your own position (I’m making the assumption you’re not exactly in poverty and living in western society).

I believe the 1% on a global scale puts anyone earning something like $20,000 a year in the top 1% ... not massively fair given the relativity of financial wealth I admit, but it at least brings into question how you apply this 1% idea and whether you feel so strongly about everyone within said 1% at all/any particular level of analysis.

1% on what scale? You’re right ask about context so it’d help if you gave some regarding whether you think the 1% matters on a nation, international, global, or other scale. I’m assuming you don’t mean global or you’d have to include a lack of sympathy for your own position (I’m making the assumption you’re not exactly in poverty and living in western society).

I believe the 1% on a global scale puts anyone earning something like $20,000 a year in the top 1% ... not massively fair given the relativity of financial wealth I admit, but it at least brings into question how you apply this 1% idea and whether you feel so strongly about everyone within said 1% at all/any particular level of analysis. — I like sushi

You're not familiar with what's meant by the 1%? No, funnily enough, I'm not talking about anything remotely close to my earnings. If we're pulling people down, then I say we should start with the richest billionaires and work downwards, not with people on the lowest incomes by Western standards.

I think a ''rights movement'' needs the sound basis of discriminatory practices. Are men discriminated against?

The examples you cite don't seem to show any unfair treatment. There is a disproportionate number of men dying/suffering but, if we dig a little deeper, I think we can find the cause in discrimination by men AND women against something else.

This is by state:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1percent-in-every-us-state.html

This is a selection of the difference between some countries:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-04/a-global-guide-to-what-it-means-to-be-part-of-the-1

Where do you draw the line? How would wealth be redistributed? How would you prevent the wealthiest from grouping together in order to expand businesses, create jobs and/or invest in future projects?

Where do you draw the line? — I like sushi

Somewhere that seems proportional. I haven't suggested that it's an easy job to come up with a really detailed and practical way of doing this. Who do you think I am? Am I a famed intellectual? Am I a politician? Am I an economist? Am I even remotely close to the genius of someone like Marx? No.

But I can easily point to the most clearcut cases of excess wealth, which is the 1%, and I know you understand what I mean by that, so stop pretending.

How would wealth be redistributed? — I like sushi

For a start, by taking the excess wealth from the wealthiest billionaires, and then redistributing it to those in the lower classes, with the aim of closer proportionality. All the details are open for debate, and don't expect me to have a fully worked out plan, because you'll be disappointed.

How would you prevent the wealthiest from grouping together in order to expand businesses, create jobs and/or invest in future projects? — I like sushi

I'm going to disregard your wording, and answer the question of what I'd do towards preventing the wealthiest from amassing excess wealth, and the answer would be the law, and law enforcement.

But I can easily point to the most clearcut cases of excess wealth, which is the 1%, and I know you understand what I mean by that, so stop pretending. — S

I’m not pretending. I’m just curious about your thoughts and who the worst people are? You did at least say “little sympathy” so I imagine you accept that not everyone in the 1% (relative to west only for clarity) is driven by excess and greed.

I don’t quite see that taking wealth and giving to lower classes would necessarily be helpful and/or welcome by those in lower income brackets. Of course though I’ll take that with generosity and assume you’re sensible enough to mean this is terms of using said redistribution to boost health, education and work toward improving the general environments of poorer areas - investing in future job prospects by creating jobs and developing skills and trades. You’d get no argument from me there.

They would no doubt be drawbacks to this concerning the global market and it is already the case that western countries are feeling a bit of this kind of pinch due to how global equality has shifted over the past few decades - I just worry that the trends in western wealth have set people up to be oversensitive to slight fluctuation which will come and go as wealth is redistributed globally.

It is certainly complex though and that is the reason I probed at what you said for greater clarity and to get a possible new perspective on how the world functions.

Thanks

I’m not pretending. I’m just curious about your thoughts and who the worst people are? You did at least say “little sympathy” so I imagine you accept that not everyone in the 1% (relative to west only for clarity) is driven by excess and greed. — I like sushi

The consequences of their actions vastly outweigh any goodness in their intentions, in my judgement.

I don’t quite see that taking wealth and giving to lower classes would necessarily be helpful and/or welcome by those in lower income brackets. — I like sushi

It would be accepted on a wide scale by the lower classes, and it would certainly be helpful to them. You see, there's this thing called the cost of living...

It could be distributed in a way that would mean a decent increase to income or having to pay less tax, so they wouldn't even really have a choice, or even if they did, who on earth in that group would object to having to pay less in tax or receiving an increase in pay? I'm confident it could be done in a clever way.

It doesn't have to be dished out in one large sum, which we could call "a charity payout for skint chavs". That would most probably get rejected on a much larger scale, because of pride. Although I still wouldn't reject it. I'd say something like, "Great! Where do I sign?".

Of course though I’ll take that with generosity and assume you’re sensible enough to mean this is terms of using said redistribution to boost health, education and work toward improving the general environments of poorer areas - investing in future job prospects by creating jobs and developing skills and trades. You’d get no argument from me there. — I like sushi

I'm talking about proportional pay for work. More people would make more money, because the pot would be shared more equally instead of drained disproportionately by just a few, with the scraps being distributed amongst the rest. Those who get millions for kicking around a ball on a field would get less or be forced to find another profession. Nurses and teachers would get more.

That's closer proportionality, as I assess it.

What are "we" doing to gay people that even comes close to throwing them off buildings or performing public executions?! — S

We are still assaulting people for what their orientation is, or what their racial makeup is. Point is we are still hurting people for a makeup they didn't choose. Did you know there were three historically black churches in the states that were burned down and the person that did it was a son of a cop and did it with racism in his heart? I still live in a society where people are will to hurt other people because of their phenotype. Yes we are very much more "liberal" than the Muslim countries in those regard but in others, we are still very much behind.

I remember a campaign about trying to get school children to think about using the word "gay" as an insult. — S

I don't. What campaign is this and where since you remember?

We are still assaulting people for what their orientation is, or what their racial makeup is. Point is we are still hurting people for a makeup they didn't choose. Did you know there were three historically black churches in the states that were burned down and the person that did it was a son of a cop and did it with racism in his heart? I still live in a society where people are will to hurt other people because of their phenotype. Yes we are very much more "liberal" than the Muslim countries in those regard but in others, we are still very much behind. — Anaxagoras

Nope, I've acknowledged that sort of thing, and it's still not even close. You should just retract your original claim, as there's a greater chance of hell freezing over than of you successfully defending it.

I don't. What campaign is this and where since you remember? — Anaxagoras

I live in England, and I distinctly remember seeing a giant poster about it with my own eyes by a train station in my town a number of years ago. I don't know what the campaign was called, if it had a name. It might have been a government thing. I would have to see if I could find out those kind of details through the internet.

Nope, I've acknowledged that sort of thing, and it is still not even close. — S

Assault is assault whether you're killing people or putting your hands on someone. Fact is, it shouldn't happen period if we are better.

You should just retract your original claim, as there's a greater chance of hell freezing over than of you successfully defending it. — S

I don't need to retract shit. I know from my own personal as well as professional experiences of what I've seen.

I live in England — S

Oh that explains it. I see how your media deals with Meghan Markle, and the acid throwing incident (a Muslim girl reportedly had acid dowsed on her face).

and I distinctly remember seeing a giant poster about it with my own eyes by a train station in my town a number of years ago. — S

Yes that tells me a lot of "what you know."

I’m still curious about them muslim countries/households you’ve visited. Any chance of more information? Thanks

Muslim acid attack victim abused online after she leaves hospital

"Last week a 16-year-old boy was charged over five linked acid attacks which took place in just 90 minutes on 14 July.

But despite suspects being identified in 60 per cent of cases, the vast majority never even reach court."

Source:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/acid-attack-london-resham-khan-trolled-out-of-hospital-online-abuse-a7854146.html

Assault is assault whether you're killing people or putting your hands on someone. Fact is, it shouldn't happen period if we are better. — Anaxagoras

That's the fallacy of missing the point. We were arguing over your original claim, and that's a completely different claim with no valid logical relation to your original claim, as far as I can tell.

I don't need to retract shit. I know from my own personal as well as professional experiences of what I've seen. — Anaxagoras

You should definitely retract the following claim, for the reason that it is obviously false and offensive:

"Just because we aren't actively throwing gay people off buildings or performing public executions does not mean the west is significantly better".

Yes it does.

Oh that explains it. I see how your media deals with Meghan Markle, and the acid throwing incident (a Muslim girl reportedly had acid dowsed on her face). — Anaxagoras

That's another fallacy of irrelevance. Possibly poisoning the well.

Yes that tells me a lot of "what you know." — Anaxagoras

It wasn't hard to find results verifying this sort of thing. Do you not know how to google? Here, click this link: https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+government+homophobia+in+schools&oq=uk+government+homophobia+in+schools&aqs=chrome..69i57.21660j0j7&client=ms-android-alcatel&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Yes we are very much more "liberal" than the Muslim countries in those regard but in others, we are still very much behind. — Anaxagoras

Behind who?

Why are you tagging me in relation to an irrelevant news article? Please don't do that.

Assault is assault whether you're killing people or putting your hands on someone. Fact is, it shouldn't happen period if we are better. — Anaxagoras

Wow. You continue to stagger me.
It should happen much less if we are better, and since it in-fact happens much less, is less culturally acceptable then yes the west is better on that issue.

Wow. You continue to stagger me.
It should happen much less if we are better, and since it in-fact happens much less, is less culturally acceptable then yes the west is better on that issue. — DingoJones

He's not being reasonable, he's just virtue signalling.

Behind who? — DingoJones

When it comes to general public treatment regarding sexual identity the west is still very under the shadow of a Christian based sexual repression - but on the flip side the liberal values upheld in the law allow these to be addressed more directly (albeit under the duress of politicised jargon in order to garner public support and play on people’s heart strings: politics has always been a cynical affair!)

I think he is trying to be, and thinks he is but has gone so far down the wrong road he cant see the turn-off (where he went wrong) anymore. The statements he is making are often utterly clueless as far as approaching the issue from a perspective other than his own.
It amazes me, cuz this dude is living a life somewhere, holds down a job, presumably interacts and gets along with other people, deals with the life problems we all have to deal with...how? How does he get by with such poor, dogmatic thinking? Its just so hard for me to imagine.

Religion poisons everything. What can ya do?

The point that Anaxagoras (the member of this forum, not the reputable philosopher) missed is that the UK government can do things like this:

More school children will be protected from homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying following a £1 million extension to a successful programme as part of the government’s LGBT Action Plan, Minister for Women and Equalities Penny Mordaunt said today.

Because they don't have the massive problem of actively throwing gay people off of buildings or performing public executions, which is strong evidence for the West being significantly better in this respect.

That we even have a Minister for Women and Equalities says a lot in itself.