I'm sorry, but that reminds me of Scott Morrison's comment that he wanted women to rise to leadership, so long as it was not at the expense of anyone else...

Yes, that's what he said — Banno

What's your point?

Why do you want to live in a world where some people thrive at the expense of others?

I agree with you on that. — S

The comparison is between equity and fairness or justice. . Proportionality might stand for justice.

Wealth proportionality would be a good thing. We don't have it. It is out of proportion, and grossly so in some cases. — S

I agree. It's just not in the remit of this thread. It's not all economics.

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

Justice wouldn't.

The comparison is between equity and fairness or justice. Proportionality might stand for justice. — Banno

I would say it leads to justice, and it is fair.

I agree. It's just not in the remit of this thread. — Banno

Yeah, I went off topic. Oops.

It doesn't seem like the distinction you're proposing is holding up to analysis, — Terrapin Station

Which distinction, and where is the analysis?

I went off topic. — S

Most of the thread is off topic...

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

Justice wouldn't. — Banno

We should stop talking in vague metaphor and stick to a clear context. I'm not sure I'd answer the question in the same way for all contexts.

We were arguing over your original claim — S

What was my original claim?

Yes it does. — S

Again, your English so obviously your bias is showing. I'm of a minority class and obviously I see the position differently than you do I think we need to address that.

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

Ah another fallacy because I brought up something that happens in YOUR country?

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

Of course I acknowledge it happens less, but the fact remains it should not happen period. On top of that at least in my country we tell the world we are a "Judeo-Christian" society and yet I see it way differently.

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

It's relevant to the point I was making. Don't tell me you're from England when you have dog shit in your yard. If you're going to have the dialectical point of view of arguing on the position of the West superiority, make sure you cover the issues in your neck of the woods.

On top of that at least in my country we tell the world we are a "Judeo-Christian" society and yet I see it way differently. — Anaxagoras

It makes no difference what you see or claim. It is a case of anthropological history. The western world’s foundation is Judeo-Christian and that is a separate issue from religious inclinations. This is traditional heritage is the bones of our language and culture.

It's relevant to the point I was making. Don't tell me you're from England when you have dog shit in your yard. If you're going to have the dialectical point of view of arguing on the position of the West superiority, make sure you cover the issues in your neck of the woods. — Anaxagoras

Maybe you conveniently omit the important point? The article you posted shows that this is an illegal act and that life sentences are being proposed for such attacks. In other countries acts of homosexuality can be met with the death penalty.

How well these laws are upheld doesn’t distract from the legality of killing people in one case and attempts to hand out harsher punishments for physical attacks - that don’t involve the death penalty.

Again, there is the case of “honour killings” too. Not necessarily based on any religious grounds. The cultural weight regarding family honour in countries outside of the western world (especially in the east) undoubtedly plays into this - religious or not doesn’t really matter as the act is no less vile.

Note: poverty does also play into how family members are treated too (sometimes as a commodity).

Not throwing gay people of buildings is better.

This doesn't make The West better than everyone else. We used to do it to.

Sometimes places start up again or make things worse (e.g. Brunei recently, 19th England specifically codifying homosexuality and its punishments, etc.). Other places may change just have we did. Throwing gay people off buildings isn't and essential Muslim trait any more than it is a Western one. Muslims have as much reason, from a Muslims point of view, to undo this cultural aspect of murdering gay people as the West did.

It's insulting to equate a people, their entire history and culture with nasty aspects of culture at one time or another. Imagine, for example, suggesting we ought to replace (or "assimilate" ) Notre Dame (since its a topical Western achievement) and Christianity with another culture because our Western, Christian culture abused gay people terribly 150 years ago? Absurd. People and culture are more complex.

In these general terms, all cultures and people live and build things of value. All of them are bound to an ethical responsibility of creating a community. The fact people and their culture are not just their horrors or abuses is something everyone has. One culture or people doesn't become essentially better because , at one point, they stop murdering gay people. Such horrors are present cultural aspects to be overcome, not reasons to abandon entire cultures and history.

It's insulting to equate a people, their entire history and culture with nasty aspects of culture at one time or another.

We’re, or at least myself, not equating people with the legalities of the institutions they live under. Of course many cultures have gone through certain changes regarding laws, secularism and technological advances. Sometimes it’s two steps forward and one step back. In this regard there is most certainly a lack perspective if you’re only acquainted with a narrow experience of human cultures and traditions.

Homosexuality was illegal in the UK too not so long ago. Even when it was illegal people knew it went on, and decades before such periods it was more or less accepted. Things have gotten better in many ways and floundered in others. The most hideous story regarding this particular area would be Alan Turing - a genius who was basically punished for for saving millions of lives.

Note: 150 years ago is not now. The possibility of such attitudes returning in the UK seems quite unlikely anytime soon. Homophobia still exists in the UK too, but people are now protected by the law and attitudes have altered in the public sphere, through debate, and in entertainment (although a certain degree of stereotypical tropes were used this has fallen off).

Also, is anyone suggesting otherwise than this:

Such horrors are present cultural aspects to be overcome, not reasons to abandon entire cultures and history.

Some ares of the globe have more immediate and obvious horrors than others. The point being made , by myself at least, is that liberalism, democracy and free speech are better than authoritarian rule, subjugation, and silencing of ideas. Again, this has and will continue to be an ever shifting problem in many regions on Earth. In this respect the west is currently doing better than many other non-western countries around the globe, including the cast majority of countries in Africa, and the East. I am NOT saying the people are superior, but I would argue that the laws of the countries and the general cultural shape being taken on by these laws is superior to many others - most likely because the west has already been through the shit to get where it is now for numerous reasons in regards to technological advances, geographic location, and plain and simple luck.

Which distinction, and where is the analysis? — Banno

You've got to be kidding me. I had just quoted you saying "The point is the difference between equity and fairness" (along with one other short sentence).

What was my original claim? — Anaxagoras

You must be trolling. I quoted it in that same reply.

Again, your [you're!] English [comma!] so obviously your bias is showing. I'm of a minority class [comma!] and obviously I see the position differently than you do [full stop!] I think we need to address that. — Anaxagoras

Ah. Yes. Obviously.

I'm the one who's biased.

Because I happen to be English.

:eyes:

Ah [comma!] another fallacy [comma!] because I brought up something that happens in YOUR your country? — Anaxagoras

Yes, a fallacy of irrelevance, because bringing up something that happens in my country doesn't address the point.

It's relevant to the point I was making. Don't tell me you're from England when you have dog shit in your yard. If you're going to have the dialectical point of view of arguing on the position of the West superiority, make sure you cover the issues in your neck of the woods. — Anaxagoras

I haven't denied any of the "dog shit" in my "yard". Stop trying to spin your own narrative and try to be reasonable. Pointing to particular extreme cases doesn't support your original claim. I am more than capable of bringing up such domestic crimes myself, but I haven't done so because it wouldn't change anything, logically. You are missing the point, and you are being unreasonably defensive.

The comparison is between equity and fairness or justice. . Proportionality might stand for justice. — Banno

How about the comparison between proportionality and aesthetics? (e.g: equal proportions of dicks to vaginas might not lead to meaningful political change for non-politicians beyond the appearance of Parliament).

And what about the comparison between aesthetics/proportionality and insipid pandering? (e.g: as you and yours kick up a fuss about vaginal scarcity in the Liberal party, they'll simply start acquiring female representatives. They don't need to actually implement coherent policies to change the plight of women, they just need to abide by your heart-felt appeal. If the Labor party happened to have a more unequal ratio of men to women in a given election cycle, would you instead vote for the Liberals?).

Justice for politicians does not necessarily translate to justice for constituents.

Not throwing gay people of buildings is better. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes. Yes, it is. And the West doesn't do this, or at least nothing like the extent to which that sort of thing happens in other places. So the West is better in this respect than those other places.

It is possible to make an overall assessment based on things like that, and to reasonably reach the conclusion that the West is significantly better than these other places with a horribly homophobic culture, and a greater rate of hate crime against gay people, and that sort of thing.

It's appalling that this schmuck is trying to draw a false equivalence, and seems to think that he's being fair or honourable in doing so. It's actually ignorant and disgraceful.

This doesn't make The West better than everyone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

[Mod deletion applied]

Please try to stick to claim that was being disputed.

It's appalling that this schmuck is trying to draw a false equivalence, and seems to think that he's being fair or honourable in doing so. It's ignorant and disgraceful. — S

He's got that anti-colonial chic.

I feel like a movement always has potential to slow,stop or even go backwards. What we need is education that was based on fact and not a predetermined outcome. If at some point we are willing judge men based on something they cannot control, then how as a country have we not gone backwards?