The Entrepreneur Forum | Financial Freedom | Starting a Business | Motivation | Money | Success

Welcome to the only entrepreneur forum dedicated to building life-changing wealth.

Build a Fastlane business. Earn real financial freedom. Join free.

Join over 80,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.

Free registration at the forum removes this block.

I Hate the Idea of Being Equal!

rogue synthetic

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
310%
Aug 2, 2017
348
1,079
"For if one removes from our experiences everything that belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and the judgments generated from them, which must have arisen entirely a priori, independently of experience, because they make one able to say more about the objects that appear to the senses than mere experience would teach, or at least make one believe that one can say this, and make assertions contain true universality and strict necessity, the likes of which merely empirical cognition can never afford."

That's from Critique of Pure Reason. It's wrong, of course: all concepts originally arise from the senses. The point is, how could a guy who believes that 'a priori' is valid do anything to defend objectivity in any form? A priori is the antithesis of objectivity.

Alright. Your next step is to justify the bolded assertion, to say why it is true and/or why anyone should believe you. You have two options for this.

You can hold it up as true, doing your own little bit of metaphysics. But that looks an awful lot like a priori knowledge.

You can be a good empiricist and leave it up to observation. But then you'll have to say what individual observation or observations can justify the universal assertion.

Before you answer, keep in mind that -- if you read the preface to the First Critique -- this dilemma, between dogmatic rationalism and skeptical empiricism, is exactly what motivated Kant to write the Critiques. The transcendental philosophy was meant to be a way to salvage scientific knowledge and human freedom given that we can't just speculate about the nature of being, the way the ancient Greeks and the medieval Christians were wont to do.

The basic problem is that if you have concepts without any basis in sensation, you're just chattering to yourself. If you look at the senses alone, then you give up on lots of things you need -- universal generalizations, logical inference, numbers, mathematical reasoning. (Hume saw this and bit the bullet, but most people today don't want to think that causality is just a fabrication of the mind, given what we know about physics.)

As far as the question of a prioricity and objectivity, it looks like you've confused objectivity with realism. A priori doesn't mean subjective, it just means prior to experience. An a priori claim would be something as trivial as "2 + 2 = 4". The expression is universally true, and true regardless of what anyone believes, which is all that objectivity entails.

If you want to talk about whether numbers and mathematical equations are "real" in the way a coffee cup or a star is real, well, that's a different issue.

Kant's moral standards were based on "Duty", which is an entirely non-objective concept. Duty is the idea that you have a moral obligation to do something regardless of whether you want to, regardless whether you receive a reward from it, regardless of whether it is good for you or bad for you. The source of the moral obligation? Always goes back to 'laws of society' in his writing.

Nothing about this is right.

Let's take a step back because we're missing some key background. The books are called *critiques* for a reason. He's investigating what is necessary for different kinds of thought, where the limits lie.

The First Critique is concerned with the limits and possibilites of theoretical knowledge. Physical objects, properties, cause and effect, that kind of thing. The world available to the senses and to the theoretical intellect is a world of cause and effect.

One of the surprising conclusions is that practical thinking, which concerns action, freedom and morality, deals with thing that fall outside the scope of theoretical reasoning.

Morality falls on the practical sides, concerning freedom and rational necessity, not physical objects and causality.

Turning specifically to the moral theory, a duty cannot be non-objective because as far as Kant is concerned, a moral obligation is a universal command which holds come what may. If one ought not tell a lie, then one is obliged not to lie no matter what time it is, where you are, or whether there's an axe murderer ready to kill your best friend if you don't lie to him.

In the Preface to the Groundwork we have this rather unwieldy sentence:

"Thus, among practical cognitions, not only do moral laws, along with their principles, differ essentially from all the rest, in which there is something empirical, but all moral philosophy is based entirely on its pure part; and when it is applied to the human being it does not borrow the least thing from acquaintance with him (from anthropology) but gives to him, as a rational being, laws a priori, which no doubt still require a judgment sharpened by experience...for the human being is affected by so many inclinations that, though capable of the idea of a practical pure reason, he is not so easily able to make it effective in concreto in the conduct of his life."

Nobody said he was a great writer. For those not comfy with stilted German, the point of this passage is that moral laws are not empirical but pure -- which means, formal or logical, purely rational rather than having anything to do with the specific person or circumstances. The moral law is a matter of pure rationality, which has nothing to do with feelings, emotions, desires, or sensations.

I'm not sure why you'd think this is somehow non-objective, or in any way connected to the laws of society. He's distanced himself about as far as you can distance yourself from subjective or social justifications. This morality is more like math or logic than feelings or social norms. (Which is ironically one of the complaints to make about Kantian moral theory.)

From another angle, consider the opening sentence from Section I of the Groundwork:

"It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will."

Kant goes on to write that moral goodness concerns who you are, in so far as what you desire and wish is the true test of a person's character. But he also realizes that human beings are really pretty messed up (the "crooked timber" quote) and saddled with so many competing motives that we need reason to even speak of moral behavior. Reason has to be separated to the maximal extent possible from the "animal" motivations.

Needless to say, reason is *not* a matter of social laws. In fact this is one of the most famous things about Kant's moral theory (Groundwork Section I again):

"But what kind of law can that be, the representation of which must determine the will, even without regard for the effect expected from it, in order for the will to be called good absolutely and without limitation? Since I have deprived the will of every impluse that could arise for it from obeying some law, nothing is left but the conformity of actions as such with universal law, which alone is to serve the will as its principle, that is, I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law."

The moral law transcends my impulses, your impulses, the rules and norms and laws of society. The moral law is universal.

He even claimed that, if you get a reward for an action, it's not virtuous, ie. Working hard to build a business is not virtuous if you do it to make money. However if you do it out of a sense of duty to donate all your money to charity, it IS virtuous.

Kant did say that an action couldn't be moral if you did it for a reward or because it made you feel good, or for any reason other than the motive of moral duty. To be fair, his stubbornness on this point gets him into trouble.

That said, to put it this way confuses moral duty and moral blame. Kant wouldn't say that an entrepreneur who works hard to build a business is therefore bad because not acting out of a moral motive. He's surprisingly restrained as far as what counts as moral actions, and most of the things we do fall outside that circle.

Unless you're expressly acting against moral duty, the action has no moral significance, good or bad. Entrepreneurship wouldn't be a moral issue at all unless somebody was acting like a dirtbag.

Don't get it twisted. Kant was pure evil. Why do you think these guys love him so much?

They even get a child to yell: "Read Kant, Cunt!". Do those people look familiar to you? They're the epitome of the PC Police.

Kant's motive from the beginning was always to convince people that they were incapable of understanding reality so that they would become mindlessly obedient followers - not for any real purpose; he just hated mankind. He wanted them to feel like their own desires had no value, which at the end of the day, implies that THEY have no value. Here's another quote by that POS. Think about it.

I'm curious...have you actually read Kant or are you recycling complaints you've picked up from second and third hand Youtubers? Virtually nothing you've said is accurate. It's like you're talking about an entirely different writer.

I can understand seeing crappy people holding up a writer's work and having an emotional reaction to it. If that's your worry, then the problem is crappy people and their sloppy thinking.

I'm not sure that countering that with more sloppy thinking and screaming-teenager name calling is really the antidote.

If anything it should be a good reminder that we need to be skeptical about anything unless you've spent time studying the texts yourself. Which means really spending time with them, not the sloppy way that so many public figures are sloppy with ideas.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

ExaltedLife

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
206%
Nov 10, 2015
400
822
31
Alright. Your next step is to justify the bolded assertion, to say why it is true and/or why anyone should believe you. You have two options for this.

You can hold it up as true, doing your own little bit of metaphysics. But that looks an awful lot like a priori knowledge.

You can be a good empiricist and leave it up to observation. But then you'll have to say what individual observation or observations can justify the universal assertion.

Before you answer, keep in mind that -- if you read the preface to the First Critique -- this dilemma, between dogmatic rationalism and skeptical empiricism, is exactly what motivated Kant to write the Critiques.

This is why most people don't take philosophy seriously anymore.

The first 'option' isn't an option. What does that mean, to 'hold it up as true'? Yeah, it's true. Just is. Nope, just is.

The 'dilemma' between rationalism and empiricism is a false dichotomy, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. Just ask yourself whether you can come up with any concept that is not originally derived from sense data. I guarantee you can't. Not a valid one, anyway - being something that actually exists. Even the idea of a unicorn is a combination of a horse with a horn.

If you want to learn the method of how concept formation actually works, go grab yourself a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand.
 

DayIFly

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
178%
Jul 16, 2012
135
240
This is why most people don't take philosophy seriously anymore.

The first 'option' isn't an option. What does that mean, to 'hold it up as true'? Yeah, it's true. Just is. Nope, just is.

The 'dilemma' between rationalism and empiricism is a false dichotomy, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. Just ask yourself whether you can come up with any concept that is not originally derived from sense data. I guarantee you can't. Not a valid one, anyway - being something that actually exists. Even the idea of a unicorn is a combination of a horse with a horn.

If you want to learn the method of how concept formation actually works, go grab yourself a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand.

This was rather condescending. @rogue synthetic put so much effort is his post. And you're trying to fob him off with Ayn Rand? Are you for real? So people are supposedly not taking philosophy seriously anymore, I see...
 

rogue synthetic

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
310%
Aug 2, 2017
348
1,079
This is why most people don't take philosophy seriously anymore.

The first 'option' isn't an option. What does that mean, to 'hold it up as true'? Yeah, it's true. Just is. Nope, just is.

The 'dilemma' between rationalism and empiricism is a false dichotomy, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. Just ask yourself whether you can come up with any concept that is not originally derived from sense data. I guarantee you can't. Not a valid one, anyway - being something that actually exists. Even the idea of a unicorn is a combination of a horse with a horn.

If you want to learn the method of how concept formation actually works, go grab yourself a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand.

I see, so we're at the point where we can just say things and they're true, because we like them or something.

That's a world I can have some real fun with!
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Roli

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
160%
Jun 3, 2015
2,061
3,301
OMG, you just voiced an opinion that is contrary to mainstream opinion. The thought police won't be happy with you...

Opinion(yours) != Opinion(Mainstream);
call function reprogram();
reprogram == True; then {
print smile;}
reprogram == False; then {
Scream "RACIST! BIGOT! XENOPHOBE!"

You forgot your last closing curly bracket, apart from that your code is faultless! :rofl:

On a related topic, I recently got called a fascist for not accepting that there is a 0.00001% chance the earth is flat!
 

StrikingViper69

Shredding scales and making sales
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
167%
Dec 3, 2018
1,452
2,420
UK
I Hate the Idea of Being Equal!

I wrote this article last month and thought I'd share it with the Forum... Just some thoughts on success and equality...

You would probably like the book "Anthem" by Ayn Rand. It's a short novel, you can read it in a weekend, about a society completely based on "equality". It has a romantic plot twist too.

PS: I think everything moves in cycles, and after a massive upheaval, there will be rapid growth and flourishing and social tension will go away for a bit. Then it all repeats. Think WW1, WW2.

PSS: Maybe neo liberalism is the new nationalism. You need people to unite under something in order to sway the masses into some form of future action.. and nowadays younger people believe in different things than before, but it is all the same, just different tools.

Another possibility is a return to something akin to the medieval dark ages. People are "thinking" more and more based on religion (whether that religion is christianity, or welfare state, communism etc) and emotion, and less on rational principles. When those ideas start to cross into the legal system, business regulation, state run education... it will become incredibly difficult to be productive.


I thank God none of us is equal and routinely get in trouble with the PC crowd and HR. All this equality crap is sickening. We should embrace our differences and use those wider range of strengths to raise us even further. No wonder Atlas Shrugged.

Amen. Love that book!

Great post. It's something that has been on my mind for a long time.

An excellent book on the subject is "Equal Is Unfair" by Don Watkins.

One thing they touch on in the book is that the only equality that should exist is Political Equality. What they mean by this is that the laws of the country should apply to everyone equally. There shouldn't be special laws or exemptions for certain groups of people. Everyone must abide by the exact same laws.
From there everything else in life is un-equal. And that's fair.

I tend to agree with this view.

What are your thoughts?

Completely agree. Every man should be equal in an objective legal system, and the rest of your life should be at your discretion, make of it what you want with what you have. Equal is Unfair is a great book.
 

Roli

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
160%
Jun 3, 2015
2,061
3,301

NC Bidniss

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
214%
Mar 5, 2019
64
137
I Hate the Idea of Being Equal!

I wrote this article last month and thought I'd share it with the Forum... Just some thoughts on success and equality...


I’m beginning to understand how out of step I am with the world these days. I’ve always spoken my mind. But, the PC (Politically Correct) crowd seem to have taken over the world around me. I’ve never been a “joiner” — even in my school days. My individualism and independent thinking have always been my hallmark. Now I have young people, a fraction of my age, telling me what I should say, and what subjects on which I must stay mum. Worse, these PC people are taking their caveats further. They are trying to tell me that my thinking is wrong. They have newer and better truths. They are creating a brave, new world. In their future utopia, everyone is going to be accepted for who they are. This acceptance does not endorse individuality. Instead, by correcting each person’s thinking, both social status and financial circumstances can be equalized. Uh????

When I hear this line of thinking, I must stop for a minute, and smile. I then get to ask them that age-old question, “Why?”

Why would anyone aspire to be equal? Would that equality rate them as being inescapably average? It’s like getting all Cs on one’s report card. Why would they accept being frozen in that quagmire of mediocrity? Don’t they want to change? They might want to strive to grow into being a better person.

Do these PC people like everyone in their world? Don’t they want to maintain the right to choose their friends and associates? Or, is their plan to just change the thinking of rouge people like me?

Drum roll, please. Here’s my huge question on the issue. If everyone is totally equal, then must they be cut with the same cookie cutter? Right? I imagine a scene where a bunch of clones, dressed in their uniforms, are all lined up. Wouldn’t that be boring? It’s like falling into a vat of vanilla ice cream. So much for diversity!

And, since you’re listening, here is my thought on equality. I believe that all humans are equal in one way. They each are given 24 hours a day. In every other way, we humans are remarkably unequal.

Every person must uncover his unique, tailor-made talents. Some of us are totally smart. Others are as dumb as a rock. Some people can run fast, while others can’t walk. There are those who have common sense and street smarts. And where were some of us hiding when the gift of common sense was handed out?

Humans are like Swiss cheese. They perfect one aspect of life, without addressing the many holes in their skill sets and knowledge. Once upon a time, when I was young, I was a trophy wife. It was a classic situation where a powerful man married a much younger woman to show off his esteemed position. My husband was a recognized genius in his profession. But he couldn’t deal with many other basic issues. I had to supervise him as he dressed, tied his shoes, and left for work. On his own, he arrived perpetually late, attired in yesterday’s dirty shirt. He was a member of the “mixed-up-shoe-gang” before it was trendy to wear unmatched shoes and socks. This accomplished man was a perfect example of our human struggles in our inherent dichotomy of equity.

Overwhelmingly, being equal is only an illusion.

That said, regardless of our endless differences, I admit to the one stellar point of human equality. We do all have those precious 24 hours each day. See, I can find a small spark of agreement with the PC crowd. Amazing.

Virtue signaling. That's it. That is the key to all of this uber-PC culture we are experiencing today. People want to feel good about themselves and look good to others, and by projecting themselves as taking the "moral high-ground" on sensitive issues allows them to do it. It also has to do with people finding a scapegoat for their own shortcomings. It's easy for people to whine that the reason they cannot afford to live is because billionaires keep oppressing them. It's easy for people to complain that they can't get a "good job" without education, and that education is too expensive. It's hard to own up to one's own laziness and lack of responsibility.

If someone is texting behind the wheel and rear-ends someone, the phone doesn't get the blame, but rather the person. Why then are people so insistent on blaming the "system" rather than taking responsibility? I believe it is because by accepting responsibility, they admit their shortcomings are their own fault, and by admitting fault they remove the ability to complain about how flawed the "system" is.
 

ExaltedLife

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
206%
Nov 10, 2015
400
822
31
I see, so we're at the point where we can just say things and they're true, because we like them or something.

That's a world I can have some real fun with!

All you've been doing here is saying that I'm wrong. I know the proof, but it takes time to explain it and I don't want to waste any more on you. That's all.
 

ExaltedLife

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
206%
Nov 10, 2015
400
822
31
This was rather condescending. @rogue synthetic put so much effort is his post. And you're trying to fob him off with Ayn Rand? Are you for real? So people are supposedly not taking philosophy seriously anymore, I see...

If you understood what Ayn Rand actually did for philosophy, you'd know that I was pointing him towards a gold mine.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

rogue synthetic

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
310%
Aug 2, 2017
348
1,079
All you've been doing here is saying that I'm wrong. I know the proof, but it takes time to explain it and I don't want to waste any more on you. That's all.

Ok, friend. I just wish you didn't take what I wrote as a personal attack. Not every disagreement is telling you that you're a bad person.

Have a great day!
 

eliquid

( Jason Brown )
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
519%
May 29, 2013
1,876
9,731
OMG, you just voiced an opinion that is contrary to mainstream opinion. The thought police won't be happy with you...

Opinion(yours) != Opinion(Mainstream);
call function reprogram();
reprogram == True; then {
print smile;}
reprogram == False; then {
Scream "RACIST! BIGOT! XENOPHOBE!"

ITT I learned that @MJ DeMarco knows how to program
 

renaissance man

Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
181%
Feb 6, 2019
32
58
Berlin, Germany
I have only one thing to say here:

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

― Milton Friedman

I'll prefer freedom any day over equality.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Fassina

Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
114%
Nov 13, 2018
81
92
27
Brazil
Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was happy ? And nobody went hungry or felt sad ? Can't you see I'm a good person just because I said those things ?

Those are platitudes, shallow people tend to spew them whenever they get the chance..

I don't like your take on truths though, we learn what's closer to the truth based on evidence and sometimes we find new evidence that disproves or decreases the probability of the previously accepted 'truth' being right.

If you care about being right rather than avoiding cognitive dissonance or protecting your ego, accepting new evidence and 'truths' are good things.
 

Xavier X

Gold Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
261%
Jan 1, 2016
474
1,235
These United States
My agreement or disagreement on "equality" depends on the person's definition.

As an African American, I don't think I'm entitled to any special treatment by virtue of this fact.
However, I also don't think I should be denied a basic free and fair playing ground either.

So individually, I believe true "equality" means a level playing field for everyone to give it their best shot.
NOT a systemic restructuring to elevate those who don't merit it, and downward stifle those who put in the work.
 

Hiram

New Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
229%
Mar 15, 2019
7
16
It's true that the majority of people are stupid to some extent, and many are PROFOUNDLY stupid, but from the perspective of policy equal access (to education and other opportunities) is essential to raise the quality of life and intelligence level of the average person, and to lift populations out of poverty and mediocrity.

The problem with the insight that we are not equal is that, when this insight makes it into policy at the state level, it can have VERY detrimental repercussions. Ignorant voters or hysterical masses can destroy the achievements of a culture. It's dangerous for us to promote policies that keep the majority in their ignorance. Mutual benefit is maximized with a more educated population.
 

Kevin88660

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
118%
Feb 8, 2019
3,457
4,081
Singapore
Are you implying you are denied of equality in law?
I am not an American but I do know of the incident of two black men being arrested in Starbucks for sitting there and not buying a drink.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
I am not an American but I do know of the incident of two black men being arrested in Starbucks for sitting there and not buying a drink.

If a business tells you to get out and you don't that's trespassing. Race doesnt matter.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Kevin88660

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
118%
Feb 8, 2019
3,457
4,081
Singapore
If a business tells you to get out and you don't that's trespassing. Race doesnt matter.
Not going to happen if it were white girls. The way the manager and the police handled the case.

City of Philadelphia, negotiated out of this to set up an endowment fund to help high school entrepreneurs, to avoid being sued by the two victims. So clearly the police was admiting civil wrong doings.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
Not going to happen if it were white girls. The way the manager and the police handled the case.

City of Philadelphia, negotiated out of this to set up an endowment fund to help high school entrepreneurs, to avoid being sued by the two victims. So clearly the police was admiting civil wrong doings.

The only people that actually know the details of what went down that day are the people that were there. So all we have is your drivel v.s. the fact that someone is trespassing if they refuse to leave when asked, making police removal of individuals of any race the logical next step.

Claiming racial motivations for kicking them out is accusatory without proof or even the ability to obtain it.

Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That keeps things simple and "equal."
 

Kevin88660

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
118%
Feb 8, 2019
3,457
4,081
Singapore
The only people that actually know the details of what went down that day are the people that were there. So all we have is your drivel v.s. the fact that someone is trespassing if they refuse to leave when asked, making police removal of individuals of any race the logical next step.

Claiming racial motivations for kicking them out is accusatory without proof or even the ability to obtain it.

Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That keeps things simple and "equal."
Whether businesses have the legal rights to choose customers based on race or other stuffs I will leave it to the lawyers.

Since this thread is about equality I will get back on the topic. Karolyi was implying that because there is no discriminatory law and hence everyone is on a fair playing ground. But people’s perception do matter. If it were two white girls in starbucks it most likely would not have happened.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
Whether businesses have the legal rights to choose customers based on race or other stuffs I will leave it to the lawyers.

Since this thread is about equality I will get back on the topic. Karolyi was implying that because there is no discriminatory law and hence everyone is on a fair playing ground. But people’s perception do matter. If it were two white girls in starbucks it most likely would not have happened.

First paragraph is straw.

Next paragraph is 100% opinion and not provable under the same circumstances.

The other question to examine here is racial biases of individual police officers... I am sure there is a problem with that. Just like there is a huge problem with police not knowing the law they are employed to enforce. Police officers don't however write the laws or determine guilt or innocence.

Saying the law isn't written in language that is irrespective of race is incorrect.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
I am not sure I understand your question.

I think you might have triggered him, but it is an interesting question. I'd like to hear from an actual African American vs the white guilt crowd.

He is asking if you think you have been unequally treated because of race with regards to the law as written.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
It all comes down to the definition of equal to the individual.

Socialists, communists and progressives want to equalize outcome of unequal input. To them this means equal.

Conservatives and libertarians would rather equalize the ability to input and leave the rest to the individual. To them this means equal.
 

Xavier X

Gold Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
261%
Jan 1, 2016
474
1,235
These United States
I think you might have triggered him, but it is an interesting question. I'd like to hear from an actual African American vs the white guilt crowd.

He is asking if you think you have been unequally treated because of race with regards to the law as written.

I am not aware of any laws affecting me which is written in a specifically discriminatory way.
I have never been arrested in my 33 years, so I can't offer first hand experience with the criminal justice system.
I have had a number of incidents getting pulled over and having myself and car searched, for no apparent reason. With the BS excuse of "I smell marijuana, can you smell it?" I don't even smoke cigarettes, not to mention weed.

What's written and how it plays out (or is enforced) in reality are sometimes different.

So imagine if an alien visited the U.S as the declaration of independence was written, and witnessed it. You can't blame said alien for going back home and confidently saying "slavery couldn't possibly further occur within a society declaring to uphold such values."

Bottom line, I feel as a nation, we are at a point where the playing field is still definitely not level.
However, it is more level than it's ever been. The existing stumbling blocks aren't enough to incapacitate anyone willing to put in the effort, and determine their own outcomes.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
I am not aware of any laws affecting me which is written in a specifically discriminatory way.
I have never been arrested in my 33 years, so I can't offer first hand experience with the criminal justice system.
I have had a number of incidents getting pulled over and having myself and car searched, for no apparent reason. With the BS excuse of "I smell marijuana, can you smell it?" I don't even smoke cigarettes, not to mention weed.

What's written and how it plays out (or is enforced) in reality are sometimes different.

So imagine if an alien visited the U.S as the declaration of independence was written, and witnessed it. You can't blame said alien for going back home and confidently saying "slavery couldn't possibly further occur within a society declaring to uphold such values."

Bottom line, I feel as a nation, we are at a point where the playing field is still definitely not level.
However, it is more level than it's ever been. The existing stumbling blocks aren't enough to incapacitate anyone willing to put in the effort, and determine their own outcomes.

Thank you for your interesting and well thought out post.

What in your opinion has still yet to change?
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Xavier X

Gold Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
261%
Jan 1, 2016
474
1,235
These United States
Thank you for your interesting and well thought out post.

What in your opinion has still yet to change?

On paper everything looks okay to me.
The problems that persist are driven at individual levels. Unfortunately, individuals are responsible for upholding, or not upholding basic tenets or laws.

Honestly, I try not to dwell on these things, and channel that energy into creating the best possible outcomes for myself.
It's easy to get caught up in being outraged about everything, to the point your own life passes you by.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
On paper everything looks okay to me.
The problems that persist are driven at individual levels. Unfortunately, individuals are responsible for upholding, or not upholding basic tenets or laws.

Honestly, I try not to dwell on these things, and channel that energy into creating the best possible outcomes for myself.
It's easy to get caught up in being outraged about everything, to the point your own life passes you by.

Totally agreed. Individuals that operate with a bias are morally reprehensible and I definitely appreciate when we as society weed them out.

I have to often pull myself back from concerning myself with the political landscape of this country. It drives my blood pressure up. Covey's "sphere of influence" comes to mind often for me.

Thank you for your posts @Xavier X
 
Last edited:

Post New Topic

Please SEARCH before posting.
Please select the BEST category.

Post new topic

Guest post submissions offered HERE.

New Topics

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top