thats's not true.

Bolded: We already do that to a certain extent.

It depends on where your base-line equality lies. Mine would be: Equal opportunity to improve your lot in life. As an example: Wealthy people have little room to move upwards. Poor people have a massive amount.

The law is applied equally. The vote in your state is the equal opportunity even if you believe that vote doesn't matter due to minority opinion.

sounds to me like every one of your "equal" judgments requires 3 caveats and a handful of qualifiers on why you subjectively think its equal.

basically post after post you're describing fairness, or equality, or a mix of both. as it should be. but fairness and equality still arent the same. equal is a number, fair is a judgement. reality is shades of both based on context.

i guess im just confused what were talking about here.


but my example shows its not fair. let me reiterate.

1 republican living in Texas, 1 in California. both vote for GOP candidates 100% against sanctuary cities. one loses, the other wins. one now lives in a sanctuary state, the other doesnt. one's roads are now shit, the other's pristine.

they did the same thing, happenstance makes the outcome different. happenstance and fairness cant mix. they're oil and water.

Stop using fairness please. I equate fairness to equal. You equate it to right or good. I started using equal to avoid this.

There is no way to reach the fairness you speak of. If we enact the policy it becomes unfair to people living in states that ignore immigration law. If we don't it becomes unfair to people in states that enforce it.

I guess it comes down to a value judgement on the law or policy itself. I 100% fall on the side of the law/policy in this instance.

as i said above:



i agree fairness is subjective.

and yet we started this conversation off by you telling me something was fair.

per the example this situation is only "fair" and "equal" (if you're equating them, that's fine) along more subjective lines. it's not inherently equal, only the laws at the statewide level are. the outcomes aren't equal, even if the actions by the individuals are. two people can do the exact same thing and end up in to opposite outcomes. so its not inherently equal, even if we disagree on fairness. its equal in only the most cursory sense.

and all of this that we've hashed out still is operating under the false assumption that politicians campaign on their plans to enact sanctuary policies. which only some do. so someone could vote for or against someone completely ignorant of the fact that they'd end up in a sanctuary zone once that person wins. further muddling the fairness side of things. if we lived in a society where politicians were forced to enact only campaign promises id agree with you more.

so outright denying what you posted is your next spineless lie? too bad you can't delete it:





again, not even half as embarrassing as your failure to address my point, but since you insist on lying about it to protect your fragile ego...

____________________________________________________________________________



no, what you 'had in mind' when you started this discussion was the idiotic narrative that the citizenship question on the census had nothing to do with voter disenfranchisement, apparently unaware that republicans had already spilled the beans...

its perfectly plausible that voter disenfranchisement is a side effect cause of this proposed action. they want to count and track illegals, in theory, first and foremost. if it causes a few less votes for sanctuary states that's great too.

viagra was created as a heart medicine that just so happened to have a cool side effect. i think its perfectly plausible that this is the same with census counting, that voter disenfranchisement is a secondary effect that just so happens to be far more of use than the initial primary goal.

I don't argue for equal outcomes. I argue for equal opportunity.

I'm 99% certain if sanctuary laws started effecting funding it would be a top priority to figure out where a politician lies on the subject. They could lie to you of course, but there's not much we can do about that outside of voters in general researching candidates more or a recall.

This post was edited by krackprophet on Dec 19 2019 04:47pm