Equality or Equity?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Strawman.

 

If you say so, i'll respect your pronoun of choice. 

Quote

I said access to lawmakers. But access to law-keepers is pretty unequal too...see SNL-Lavalin Affair.

Access to lawmakers is pretty much the same too. Trudeau got caught for SNC and SNC didn't get the deal they were looking for. If that's your example it wasn't a very good one. 

There will be those, rich or poor, who manage to game the system from time to time. Hell right now murderers get out on bail the same day they're arrested even if they're broke. 

Your premise is simply wrong. 

 

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Access to lawmakers is pretty much the same too.

Sure, I suppose bribing or threatening a judge or prosecutor works for those who can afford it.

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There will be those, rich or poor, who manage to game the system from time to time.

Far far more of the former than the latter though I'd bet.

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your premise is simply wrong. 

It's spot on actually.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, I suppose bribing or threatening a judge or prosecutor works for those who can afford it.

No, they tend to go to jail for that. 

But I get why you need to bring up fake arguments given that your actual original argument is really not going well for you

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Far far more of the former than the latter though I'd bet.

Other way around actually. The courts tend to have infinite sympathy for people they consider to be poor simple repressed folk, because they tend to be pretty hard on corporations. The human rights tribunals are a thousand times worse, basically incorporation there has to prove that they're innocent or they are considered guilty

 

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's spot on actually.

No, as discussed it's complete bullshit. It's a lie that you tell yourself in order to justify your own immoral stances in positions. You do that a lot, you come up with something that you know is morally wrong but you don't want to feel like it's morally wrong so you come up with some species of lie but you feel justifies it but that you can't prove.

The law is accessible to everyone. Or inaccessible to everyone as the case may be. Your own example prove that you were wrong.

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Try going through it word by word with a dictionary.

But maybe start with the word disingenuous.

Yeah..uh...nope...still isn't really english. It  needs a coherent thought. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The law is accessible to everyone.

Sure, anyone can just walk in off the street to see a cabinet minister about getting a prosecutor off their back. LMAO!

You really don't have a clue what I was talking about do you? It's phenomenal how easily you get taken in by your own strawman. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yeah..uh...nope...still isn't really english. It  needs a coherent thought. 

Okay, you've convinced me you really are a dolt after all.

So much for the benefit of doubt.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Sure, anyone can just walk in off the street to see a cabinet minister about getting a prosecutor off their back. LMAO!

 

You can hir a lawyer who will.  If you mean illegally a cabinet minister can't do that. And in fact the last time someone took that idea to a cabinet minister it became a national scandal. 

But you have to lie as always to try to defend your narrative which doesn't exist in the real world .   Yawn 

Just now, eyeball said:

You really don't have a clue what I was talking about do you? It's phenomenal how easily you get taken in by your own strawman. 

Everyone can see what you're talking about. I'm sure you think it's some sort of deep or clever or sinister thing but you're talking at about a Grade four level, And that's why you can't actually refute or deal with any of the points. You just got to keep repeating the same lies

And once again nothing what you're saying is true you just like to say it is so that you can justify your hatred of wealthy people and your desire to take their money away so that you can feel better about your own sad life

You can wallow in your little conspiracy theory puddle as much as you like but it's not going to change the fact that you're wrong. And it's not going to change the fact that the more rich people a country has the Richer it's poor people are. Wealth, perhaps unsurprisingly, makes everyone wealthy.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Everyone can see what you're talking about.

Then why pretend I'm talking about something else or do you struggle with English as well?

If you're trying to convince me you're just stupid it's working.

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Then why pretend I'm talking about something else or do you struggle with English as well?

There's no pretending there's no pretend that you were talking about something else. I already addressed what you were talking about quite clearly, even used your own example to prove that what you were saying was complete bullshit, and expanded on it a little bit because it's true. People have access to the law, people have access to the lawmakers sufficient for their needs to be able to do their business and make new laws. In fact very poor public organizations very frequently wind up getting laws put forward

Your entire narrative depends on some conspiracy hoax of some evil group of people who can walk into parliament at any time, wave their super secret specter badges and star chamber iDs and have any law set aside and get anything they want! And it's a complete fantasy.

So at the end of the day you're alleged reason for hating rich people is completely void of reason. But you still want to hate rich people, that's the main goal here so you keep perpetuating the same lies and blaming me for having moved on after I have already proven that you were wrong.

You are such a damaged little creature

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

Two different things.

Equal opportunity yes.

When it comes to equal outcomes it depends on what you are talking about.

Very different and I think your statement says a lot about cause and effect in terms of which comes first. Outcomes are highly unlikely to be equal and more likely to be unfair in the absence of equal opportunity.

I think any discussion about equal outcomes should start with first settling what we mean when talking about equal opportunities.

 

 

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your entire narrative depends on some conspiracy hoax of some evil group of people who can walk into parliament at any time, wave their super secret specter badges and star chamber iDs and have any law set aside and get anything they want! And it's a complete fantasy.

I've said many times the perception of corruption is as good and maybe a better reason for greater transparency. I think dispelling misperceptions would do a lot to cut off the polluted oxygen that drives the sort of divisive partisan bickering you love engaging in.

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So at the end of the day you're alleged reason for hating rich people is completely void of reason

And at the end of your day, just like the start of your day you create another strawman. I don't hate the rich - I'm rich FFS you silly doofus.

LMAO!

[Nationalist]

Equity is a Libbie attempt to warp equality.

Is there equality? Yes. In fact the DEI rules have tipped equality in the direction of anyone who is not Caucasian. 

[Deluge]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

Something in the middle.

In the middle? So you can take only so much equal opportunity before you need the government to step in and start handing out tax dollars to the welfare legacies and illegal aliens? 

[Aristides]

When you do things like literally buying access to a president, you don't have equal opportunities and obviously will not have equal outcomes.

[Deluge]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

When you do things like literally buying access to a president, you don't have equal opportunities and obviously will not have equal outcomes.

That's what Biden was guilty of. It's a good thing that a$$hole is out of the WH.

[Aristides]

https://gizmodo.com/freight-company-tells-sec-it-needs-millions-in-trump-to-get-access-to-the-president-2000598631

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-family-sells-access-president-135400109.html

 

[Aristides]

But if you think that if one president does it, then it's OK for all them, it's pretty ridiculous to be going on about equal opportunities vs equal outcomes.