[conquer]

tl;dr version is in post #4. But I recommend reading the full OP for better understanding of where I'm coming from.

I don't understand people who claim to want equality, yet they either want an extreme form of equality or want to pick and choose where they want equality. They criticise many people for endorsing some form of inequality in one area, yet they practise or fail to condemn other forms of inequality in another area.

For example, let's examine a lot of modern feminists. They claim to want equality between men and women, when in reality, they generally only want equality where it suits women. If a man says or does something that they view as sexism against women, they're quick to condemn him and label as a "CHAVANIZTIC PEEG!11!!!" Numerous feminists have time to go on a protest just because of a quote from a police officer likely taken out of context (Slut Walk). Yet I haven't heard of any protests from feminists against: female tennis players being paid the same as men for doing less work; more money being devoted towards breast cancer than prostate cancer; the EU idiots backing quotas for women to get into company boardrooms; all women shortlists in politics. How many protests have been made for men to have the right to abort their fatherhood by not having to pay child support? Where are the feminists insulting those tennis organizations, the EU fools and sects of the government as "chauvanistic pigs", eh? Oh no. Instead they generally keep quiet and don't devote the same amount of effort to fight for men's equality as they do for women's equality. You see what I mean? Modern feminists generally want equality where it suits women and in some cases, support inequality against men. Yet they have to audacity to insult some men who happen to endorse the slightest of inequality against women.

Another example of the equality hypocrites are those that support progressive tax. If you ask many of these people if they support equal opportunities and treatment for human beings regardless of gender and race, they will eagerly say "Yes". Yet ask them whether human beings should be subjected to the same percentage of tax regardless of their income, all of a sudden, there's a problem. I personally don't understand how people can see it as fair for someone to have to pay a higher percentage of tax just because they earn more. Men and women have their differences. Yet not many people would dare to support men getting preferential treatment or access to certain jobs while women get the same for other jobs. Why? Because regardless of whatever differences men or women may have generally, they're still human beings and individuals. Hence they should both have equal opportunities and treatment to enter whatever career path they choose. Likewise, regardless of someone's income, they're still human beings nonetheless and should be treated equally, meaning that they pay the same percentage tax as each other. The rich will still pay more money anyway. Why should the rich get worse treatment than the "poor"? Ask yourself what makes men superior to women that they should get better treatment or opportunities? Likewise, what makes poor people superior to the rich that they should get preferential treatment in terms of taxes? Just because the rich can afford to have more money taken away from them doesn't make it fair in terms of equal treatment.

So how is it feminists (some of you) and progressive tax supporters? Do you only want equality where it suits you or your feelings against men or rich people? Does your hate for men or rich people permit you to endorse the very thing (inequality) you claim to be against?

But I think it's worth considering another reason why some progressive tax supporters support inequality against the rich. Like many of them will say, they support progressive tax because the rich can afford to pay more money into the system. But why is it necessary for them to have to put more money into the system? Because of the economic system that we have which has a public sector of a large and unsustainable size. They gladly support a large public sector and a smaller or non-existant private sector, not realising that they're shooting themselves in the foot because the public sector doesn't generate "real" wealth hence why it requires a lot of borrowing to sustain it. It also requires a lot of taxes, creating an overall high taxation system that only contributes to more suffering for the general population. And hence they're willing to punish the rich to generate as much funds as possible to keep up their unsustainable public sector.

For this reason, I think many people in this country need to reconsider their stance in economics & politics and determine whether their "good" policies end up doing more harm than good. For the UK to get their economy back on the rise, the gov't need to find measures of supporting the growth of the private sector (mainly businesses), while reducing the size of the public sector. It needs to reduce unproductive/silly legislations, bureaucracies and benefits which stagnate and drain our economy overall, rather than helping it progress. Basically the UK needs to get closer to classical liberalism, except we'll still have some benefits/welfare system to support those in need. This will mean that less money will need to taken away from the general population through taxes and therefore, a flat taxation system will be sufficient to generate the money needed by the gov't. Or we could even give some consideration to a land value tax system. And of course, loopholes should be closed.

But the main point of this thread is to expose the contradictory and hypocritical nature of many feminists and progressive tax supporters. Sorry for the long read but I hope it was worth it in the end.

Thanks for reading.

Edit: I also understand that the financial sector and the household debts have contributed a lot to the UK's total debt. However, the gov't should have worked with the bank to try and prevent the extent of the damage that the recklessness of the banks and household sector had on our economy (house price bubble etc). Maybe we should have a complete reform of the banks to avoid such recklessness in the future. I'm not sure whether more legislations from the gov't is enough to solve the problem.

[conquer]

Bump

[Amhorangerdgerriug]

tl;dr?

From the title, it sounds like we may be in agreement as I am a real hater of hypocrisy in the name of equality, but it's my weekend and I honestly can't be arsed.

[conquer]

TL;DR version of my OP is basically:

Some feminists that claim to want equality, condemn some men who happen to be slightly sexist yet those feminists either practise inequality against men or condone inequality against men or deliberately fail to condemn sexism against men.

Then, many people who advocate equality in many areas of life (e.g. equality regardless of race, gender, religion) are happy to criticise any slight hint of racism or sexism, yet they condone inequality against rich people (progressive tax) just because of their high incomes. Surely if humans are entitled to equality regardless of race, religion or gender, then they should be entitled to equality regardless of income?

Afterwards, I go on to examine further reasons why some people may support progressive tax and offer some solutions to help avoid the unfairness of people (rich) having the pay a higher percentage of tax than others (poor).

[conquer]

(Original post by Amhorangerdgerriug)
tl;dr?

From the title, it sounds like we may be in agreement as I am a real hater of hypocrisy in the name of equality, but it's my weekend and I honestly can't be arsed.

I posted the tl;dr version below your post.

[Amhorangerdgerriug]

Haha cheers

[Amhorangerdgerriug]

Anyway, as I suspected, I agree with you.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by conquer)
I don't understand people who claim to want equality, yet they either want an extreme form of equality or want to pick and choose where they want equality. They criticise many people for endorsing some form of inequality in one area, yet they practise or fail to condemn other forms of inequality in another area.

For example, let's examine a lot of modern feminists. They claim to want equality between men and women, when in reality, they generally only want equality where it suits women. If a man says or does something that they view as sexism against women, they're quick to condemn him and label as a "CHAVANIZTIC PEEG!11!!!" Numerous feminists have time to go on a protest just because of a quote from a police officer likely taken out of context. Yet I haven't heard of any protests from feminists against: female tennis players being paid the same as men for doing less work; more money being devoted towards breast cancer than prostate cancer; the EU idiots backing quotas for women to get into company boardrooms; all women shortlists in politics. How many protests have been made for men to have the right to abort their fatherhood by not having to pay child support? Where are the feminists insulting those tennis organizations, the EU fools and sects of the government as "chauvanistic pigs", eh? Oh no. They generally keep quiet and don't devote the same amount of effort to fight for men's equality as they di for women's equality. You see what I mean? Modern feminists generally want equality where it suits women and in some cases, support inequality against men. Yet they have to audacity to insult some men who happen to endorse the slightest of inequality against women.

Another example of the equality hypocrites are those that support progressive tax. If you ask many of these people if they support equal opportunities and treatment for human beings regardless of gender and race, they will eagerly say "Yes". Yet ask them whether human beings should be subjected to the same percentage of tax regardless of their income, all of a sudden, there's a problem. I personally don't understand how people can see it as fair for someone to have to pay a higher percentage of tax just because they earn more. Men and women have their differences. Yet not many people would dare to support men getting preferential treatment or access to certain jobs while women get the same for other jobs. Why? Because regardless of whatever differences men or women may have generally, they're still human beings and individuals. Hence they should both have equal opportunities and treatment to enter whatever career path they choose. Likewise, regardless of someone's income, they're still human beings nonetheless and should be treated equally, meaning that they pay the same percentage tax as each other. The rich will still pay more money anyway. Why should the rich get worse treatment than the "poor"? Ask yourself what makes men superior to women that they should get better treatment or opportunities? What makes poor people superior to the rich that they should get preferential treatment in terms of taxes? Just because the rich can afford to have more money taken away from them doesn't make it fair in terms of equal treatment.

So how is it feminists and progressive tax supporters? Do you only want equality where it suits you or your feelings against men or rich people? Does your hate for men or rich people permit you to endorse the very thing (inequality) you claim to be against?

But I think it's worth considering another reason why some progressive tax supporters support inequality against the rich. Like many of them will say, they support progressive tax because the rich can afford to pay more money into the system. But why is it necessary for them to have to put more money into the system? Because of the economic system that we have which has a public sector of a large and unsustainable size. They gladly support a large public sector and a smaller or non-existant private sector, not realising that they're shooting themselves in the foot because the public sector don't generate "real" wealth hence why it requires a lot of borrowing to sustain it. It also requires a lot of taxes, creating an overall high taxation system that only contributes to more suffering for the general population. And hence they're willing to punish the rich to generate as much funds as possible to keep up their unsustainable public sector.

For this reason, I think many people in this country need to reconsider their stance in economics & politics and determine whether their "good" policies end up doing more harm than good. For the UK to get their economy back on the rise, the gov't find measures of supporting the growth of the private sector, while reducing the size of the public sector. It needs to reduce unproductive/silly legislations, bureaucracies and benefits which stagnate and drain our economy overall, rather than helping it progress. Basically the UK needs to get closer to classical liberalism, except we'll still have some benefits/welfare system to support those in need. This will mean that less money will need to taken away from the general population through taxes and therefore, a flat taxation system will be sufficient to generate the money needed by the gov't.

But the main point of this thread is to expose the contradictory and hypocritical nature of many feminists and progressive tax supporters. Sorry for the long read but I hope it was worth it in the end.

Thanks for reading.

No no no. The reason why feminist don't campaign for men's inequality is because by definition they're focusing on equality for women. This is like you criticizing a animal rights activist for not protesting against human rights. Da ***? They didn't say they don't support men's right rather merely focusing on women's right. You haven't done any sort of polling issues on what modern feminist support yet you're merely spouting **** about their beliefs.

Can't be bothered with the progressive vs flat tax. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...light=flat+tax - 30 page thread.

[conquer]

(Original post by Amhorangerdgerriug)
Anyway, as I suspected, I agree with you.

Thanks.

[JoeBiden]

You forgot the racial Angle.

[conquer]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No no no. The reason why feminist don't campaign for men's inequality is because by definition they're focusing on equality for women. This is like you criticizing a animal rights activist for not protesting against human rights. Da ***? They didn't say they don't support men's right rather merely focusing on women's right. You haven't done any sort of polling issues on what modern feminist support yet you're merely spouting **** about their beliefs.

Everytime I ask modern feminists about general feminism these days and I say that it is just for women, not men, they generally deny it. I try to get them to admit that I'm right by giving them numerous examples in the world to back up my points and yet they deny that feminism generally focuses on women's rights, not men's. I have read many threads on different forums on feminism as well and the feminists on there are the same and keep on denying the truth that feminism is just about rights for women.

And note that at various points in my OP, I was careful to say terms/phrases like "generally" or "a lot of". Which meant that I was just talking about my general encounter with feminists and I wasn't claiming that all feminists were the hypocrites I was describing in my OP.

Can't be bothered with the progressive vs flat tax. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...light=flat+tax - 30 page thread.

I'll have a look at this thread.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by conquer)
Everytime I ask modern feminists about general feminism these days and I say that it is just for women, not men, they always deny it. I try to get them to admit that I'm right by giving them numerous examples in the world to back up my points and yet they deny that feminism generally focuses on women's rights, not men's. I have read many threads on different forums on feminism as well as the feminists on there are the same and keep on denying the truth that feminism is just about rights for womens.


I'll have a look at this thread.

It might be a problem with your phrasing. You don't need to give examples of feminist support women's equality to show feminism is about women's right. All you need to do is look at a dictionary of wikipedia article. "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." See nothing to do with inequality for men.

However, this does not mean that feminist can't also support equality for men just like a animal rights activist can also support human rights.

[conquer]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
It might be a problem with your phrasing. You don't need to give examples of feminist support women's equality to show feminism is about women's right. All you need to do is look at a dictionary of wikipedia article. "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." See nothing to do with inequality for men.

However, this does not mean that feminist can't also support equality for men just like a animal rights activist can also support human rights.

Yes, I agree. Many times when I encounter these feminists, I even point out the dictionary definition and they still deny it. This just adds to my frustration at a lot of modern feminists these days for their stubbornness to accept the truth and reality that feminism has always been mainly about women's rights.

Of course a feminist can in some way support men's rights as well. But would you agree that the term "feminist" is not best suited to such a person? Would you agree that a new term is needed for people who actively support/fight for both men's and women's rights?

[conquer]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
.

Hi. I drifted through the thread that you linked me to and I didn't really find any convincing arguments for progressive tax being fair. Would you care to demonstrate your case in favour of the fairness of progressive tax please?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by conquer)
Hi. I drifted through the thread that you linked me to and I didn't really find any convincing arguments for progressive tax being fair. Would you care to demonstrate your case in favour of the fairness of progressive tax please?

Haven't read enough about the merits of both to have a conclusive opinion. But, if you want quote py0alb in that thread considering he seems to be the main contender in that thread that flat tax doesn't work.

[conquer]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Haven't read enough about the merits of both to have a conclusive opinion. But, if you want quote py0alb in that thread considering he seems to be the main contender in that thread that flat tax doesn't work.

Hmmm. I'd rather not. He seems incapable of having a calm debate with those with different opinions to himself and instead just attacks/insults those people, rather than attacking/refuting their arguments or explaining as clearly as possible where he is coming from, if they don't understand what he's saying.

So no thanks

[birdsong1]

(Original post by conquer)
If you ask many of these people if they support equal opportunities and treatment for human beings regardless of gender and race, they will eagerly say "Yes". Yet ask them whether human beings should be subjected to the same percentage of tax regardless of their income, all of a sudden, there's a problem.

If you really want to get into this argument, equality in terms of taxes means equal tax, not equal percentages.

"Rich people paying more" is already an inequality - and furthermore it's the actual measurement of inequality. The percentage itself is just a red herring.


(Clarification: not saying that it's the actual measurement of inequitability, though, only of inequality. An unequal treatment could very well be more equitable - indeed, that's what the progressives' arguments imply. Not saying they're right. All I'm saying: if you really want to make an argument based on equality of peoples, it makes no sense to stop at the arbitrary "equal percentage" threshold.)

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by conquer)
Hmmm. I'd rather not. He seems incapable of having a calm debate with those with different opinions to himself and instead just attacks/insults those people, rather than attacking/refuting their arguments and explain clearly where he is coming from.

So no thanks

Haha, only in the case where people display a lack of economic proficiency. If you outline what the threshold and rate would be to maintain our current tax revenue levels then I'm sure he'd gave you a critique of why it won't work. If you believe that our current tax revenue levels are too high then that means you have to show exactly where they are too high and give alternatives which will take you days/weeks to properly work out. Some of the suggestions in that thread were pretty stupid so it's not surprise he didn't respond properly. But, I don't understand why insults bother people so much. Just remove them and reply to the relevant part.

[krishan369]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
It might be a problem with your phrasing. You don't need to give examples of feminist support women's equality to show feminism is about women's right. All you need to do is look at a dictionary of wikipedia article. "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." See nothing to do with inequality for men.

However, this does not mean that feminist can't also support equality for men just like a animal rights activist can also support human rights.

If its about equality to men, doesn't preferential treatment of women in occassional cases go against feminism.

[tehforum]

The first half about feminism I agree with; but the latter half about progressive taxation was not worth my time.