Discrimination is a right!
Discrimination is a right!
Any public person, group, company or church that identifies as Christian will be forced to take a stand on the question of whether or not they celebrate the LGBTQ lifestyle regardless of whether they want to or not, even if they barely care about the issue. That’s the plan. Because the Bible presents a clear position that is counter to the prevailing culture, it is an easy avenue of attack. The hate on this issue is one-sided. Christian theology teaches to love the sinner while hating the sin. Anti-Christian leftists practice hating the Christian while celebrating the sin. Christian unwillingness to celebrate the sin is the offense that cannot be overlooked.
People do not embrace an intellectual abstraction like “equality” because it is self-evidently true, but rather because, as he says, they fear that they are somehow disadvantaged in the competition of life. Thus, whatever advantages are enjoyed by the winners in the competition are condemned as unfair — a violation of equality — and from this emerges a politics of envy called “social justice.” We see this, for example, in demands for “free” health care and “free” college tuition. Because more affluent people can afford to pay cash to send their kids to Harvard, according to this egalitarian “social justice” mentality, it is unfair that less fortunate people are effectively excluded from elite schools or, if they can gain admission to Harvard, must borrow money to attend.
It says “all men are created equal…”. It does not mean they will stay that way. Equality of outcome is NOT a feature of a free society.
Source: ‘The Heresy of Equality’
“It’s debatable whether even the most stringent gun-control measures would prevent mass shootings, and it’s doubtful that those measures would survive the Roberts Court’s scrutiny. But time and time again, these proposals reveal a troubling window into the mindset of the gun-rights activists who oppose them. That, in turn, only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger. If the main reason you need an AR-15 is to murder civil servants and elected officials, you shouldn’t have it in the first place.”
Well no, that’s not quite accurate. We don’t want to own AR-15s “to murder civil servants and elected officials”, we need them to hold off government agents when they arrive at our door to disarm us — in clear violation of the Constitution (which, lest we forget, said gummint agents swore to uphold as part of their office-taking oath).
And by “hold off” I don’t necessarily mean “kill them” (it’s not murder if they attack you first, BTW, no matter what un-Constitutional law they hide behind); “holding off” also means making them a little more fearful of the consequences of their actions, and a little more reluctant to be statist bullies
Source: Um, No
An essay from 1964 that I just became aware of. This shows how inferior a command and control socialist/communist economy is to freedom and free markets. All illustrated by a simple pencil… which isn’t really as simple a product as you might think.
The above is what I meant when writing, “If you can become aware of the miraculousness that I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing.” For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand — that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding — then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.
Source: I, Pencil
These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.
What do the driverless car and its accompanying freedom trade-off have to do with social media censorship? Perhaps everything. Government bureaucrats will not personally program the massive database upon which the driverless cars will depend. Instead, the database will rely upon the same tech-savvy talent pool that has revolutionized every aspect of mass communication in recent decades. The same ideology that controls our online communications will now be controlling the destinations of our driverless cars.
Do we expect the driverless car database to operate any more “fairly” than social media? Will we be surprised when conservatives find themselves locked out of the GPS database after voicing conservative opinions on social media? Facebook has no rational explanation for the censorship it now practices. The company ultimately apologized to Franklin Graham. But it ignores protests from its less famous users who find themselves blocked or censored.
We have no reason to believe that Big Tech will treat us any better once its GPS system controls our transportation.
Liberalism is just plain evil. I would never have thought of this. But then, I, and my fellow conservatives, believe in freedom and don’t go around trying to control your life.
As you will note from the chart above, roofing is one of the top 5 most dangerous jobs and the workforce is 97.7% male. Why do you think that feminists are more concerned about increasing the percentage of women in high-tech jobs than in helping women become roofers — or working in the logging or fishing industries? Isn’t obvious that these are jobs women don’t want to do? Toting heavy bundles of shingles up a ladder is rigorous exercise, but women would rather pay money for a yoga class or a gym membership than to get paid for the kind of exercise my son does, and yet feminists believe women are victims of discrimination.
What feminists want is not “equality,” in the sense of basic fairness — the equal application of recognized standards of merit — but rather they seek to impose quotas in hiring for certain categories of employment. Feminists use a rhetoric of “diversity” and “inclusion” to justify discrimination against males in certain occupational fields.
It is only such jobs — sitting at a desk in a nice air-conditioned office — that feminists care about when advocating “equality” and, by filing lawsuits over dubious claims of sexist discrimination, feminists have succeeded in compelling universities and corporations to institute de facto hiring quotas that favor women.
I did not know that truck driving was so high on the dangerous list. Maybe I should rethink my new career? Read the whole thing. And remember what RSM says about feminists:
What’s behind the FSO movement? Mainers’ fervor for food sovereignty began to solidify in the state at the beginning of this decade, in the wake of the state’s prosecution of a raw milk farmer. Another key impetus for the movement was a state exemption for farmers who wanted to sell less than $1,000 in poultry annually. Those who wished to sell poultry under the so-called exemption first had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to comply with state regulations.
The phrase “white heterosexual male” has become a popular term of demonization in the rhetoric of the Left, and you cannot expect white men to enjoy being assigned the role of Emmanuel Goldstein in this 21st-century version of Orwell’s dystopia. If the reaction of white men to being scapegoated is sometimes irrational and violent, this is to be lamented, but the irrationality of their reaction doesn’t mean that they are incorrect in their perception, or that they are wrong to be angry about being unfairly demonized as “privileged” by the college-educated Left.
How is the ordinary working-class white man, toiling in a low-status job to support himself and his family, “privileged” in any meaningful way? And how is it that the people accusing him of “privilege” are almost exclusively members of the college-educated elite? The average salary of a law professor at the University of California is over $270,000, whereas the median household income in Wisconsin is $66,432. Is the working man in Sheboygan more “privileged” than you, Professor Williams?
Read the whole email.
Source: E-Mail to a Liberal Professor
These folks mean well. They seek to boost all mankind up to their own plane of enlightenment. Inequality outrages their sense of justice. They regard conventional habits of behavior as so many obstacles to be overcome on the path to perfection. They see tradition as the enemy of innovation, which they embrace as a lifeline to moral progress. They cannot encounter a wrong without seeking to right it. The idea that some evils may be ineradicable is anathema. The notion that the best is the enemy of the good, that many choices are to some extent choices among evils—such proverbial wisdom seems quaintly out of date. The result is a campaign to legislate virtue, to curtail eccentricity, to smother individuality, to barter truth for the current moral or political enthusiasm.
For centuries, prudent political philosophers have understood that the lust for equality is the enemy of freedom.
The Constitution was written to ‘secure the blessings of liberty’ not equality. That’s why Democrats hate the Constitution.
Economic mistakes permeate Welby’s ideas, but they stem from a deeper philosophical omission: Forced actions do not have the same moral value as actions which are freely chosen. It is more valuable for an individual to freely decide to pay for healthcare for someone who cannot afford it than for that same individual to be forced by the government to provide that care.
The United States Constitution was adopted to “…provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”. Note it is Liberty, not force, that is to be established. Force is evil and is to be used sparingly.
Taken at face value, incels’ demands are nothing less than the socialism of sex. From each according to her ability, to each according to his needs, sex is to be taken out of the control of the individuals having it, placed in the hands of the state, and distributed equally. How will this bureaucratic nightmare of state-sponsored rape work? As with the usual plans of statists, the answer is simply “We’ll pass a law.”
Critics of the Second Amendment say they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season.
We all, in fact, discriminate because that is the essence of freedom and conscience. If we simply believe what the state dictates, then we are drones without any spark of life or reason. When people worry about “discrimination,” what they really mean is the unequal treatment of blacks and, to a lesser extent, women and Jews. But when the state extends “protection” to groups who no longer need protection, that creates simmering anger at those who are the notional “discriminators.”
Discrimination is a right. You have a right to choose, which means you’ve discriminated against what you didn’t choose.