People normalized homosexuality because they thought homosexuals were, on average, not degenerate and deviant. When that ended up not being the case, the people pivoted to normalizing degeneracy and deviancy. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Similar to the push for equality transforming into the push for equity. When all legal barriers to equality were removed, people expected underachieving demographics to rise up. When that didn’t happen - because low IQ and impulse control are largely genetic - then people pivoted to pursuing equity. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Equality itself is an affront to nature. Nobody is equal. The only logical way to make people equal is to destroy some highly successful people's abilities to put them on par with the lowest common denominator.
It's the same concept as "equal justice under the law," applied broadly. If a politician and a black laborer are both discovered to be thieves, both should face the same law and consequence, without favor to the former because he is a politician or to the latter because he's black.
So no, the treatment should not be tailored to the person where equality is concerned. Equal opportunity, equal treatment, with the understanding that people will always be unequal by nature and by outcome.
People normalized homosexuality because they thought homosexuals were, on average, not degenerate and deviant. When that ended up not being the case, the people pivoted to normalizing degeneracy and deviancy. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Similar to the push for equality transforming into the push for equity. When all legal barriers to equality were removed, people expected underachieving demographics to rise up. When that didn’t happen - because low IQ and impulse control are largely genetic - then people pivoted to pursuing equity. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Equality itself is an affront to nature. Nobody is equal. The only logical way to make people equal is to destroy some highly successful people's abilities to put them on par with the lowest common denominator.
Equality is about treating people equally, not treating them as equals.
How do you treat people equally if they are not equal? Wouldn't you tailor your treatment to the person?
It's the same concept as "equal justice under the law," applied broadly. If a politician and a black laborer are both discovered to be thieves, both should face the same law and consequence, without favor to the former because he is a politician or to the latter because he's black.
So no, the treatment should not be tailored to the person where equality is concerned. Equal opportunity, equal treatment, with the understanding that people will always be unequal by nature and by outcome.