Mike

It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was an observation.

Sorry. I should have left it at "I certainly don't see anything to disagree about".

You're certainly not without your rights to think what you wish. I am thinking it's kind of making a mountain out of a mole hill. The characteristics I mentioned are also irrelevant to me because on a spiritual level I'm trying to be like Jesus, and on a temporal level I'm trying to treat people equally. So, I'll try harder not to be bothered with these details and the differing ways we define equality because I suspect you and I really do agree on the big stuff.

I certainly don't see anything to disagree with you there. I've witnessed some people go off on tangents before, and complain that we shouldn't expect to treat all of our children equally. I think that's a silly place to try and take the conversation because of course we don't treat our children exactly the same. And it would be silly of such people to think that you would be saying we do.

Well, isn't it accurate to say that speaking spiritually the Atonement of Christ offers equality of opportunity to choose to live according to the Sacrament Prayer? As far as Abraham is concerned I don't think so much that he has more opportunity than little old me. Let's say he was greater than I--I can't see a reason to be upset about that. Christ is still an equal opportunity Savior, isn't He?

So far the OP seems to have the veiled objective of simply attacking the "left", the Democratic Party, politicians with whom some disagree, etc. That's pretty old and a lot less productive than examining specific issues. It would make a lot more sense to me and it would be a lot more interesting to me if there were some straightforward examples of what I'm going to call this "evil equality" @wenglund sees, and why it's evil. @eddified mentioned Communism. And my friend @MormonGator mentioned college basketball, hahaha. And @wenglund just brought up "racial equality" a bit ago. Ok, racial equality is a lot more specific than what the very first post suggested. So that would be a good issue to discuss, but it would be even better to talk more specifically. What thing can blacks do today that they couldn't do 75 years ago because of "racial equality"? Obviously, voting comes to mind. Is that what you have a problem with? Do you have a problem with swimming together? What's the evil? I'd like to avoid running after what seem to me to be stray dogs and talk about something specific. OK, I'll steel myself for the chiding that may be in the offing for me.

That was your response to my remark that "There is nothing about the varied degrees of glory (neither hypothetically nor in reality) that should be construed as violating an egalitarian principle." But your response puzzles me because I didn't see anything in the OP that would make me think about Communism. I suspect that you reject Communism, as I do. So while you're probably correct that a socialist or communist may disagree with me I think it's sort of irrelevant.

@wenglund You think striving to become the very best person possible is important. So do I. And I think the concepts of equality before the law and equality in terms of opportunity don't conflict with striving to become the very best. Moreover, I don't think you have taken sufficient time to know what I think the quoted phrase means. I don't think anything I've said conflicts with Mr. Darnell's blog. So, I think you are the one drawing a false dichotomy. I'm glad to know that you are not advocating a survival-of-the-fittest prime directive. But I think you're drawing straw a man when you focus on the natural order of things. No reasonable person believes that it isn't the natural order of things. So asking my question to you was nothing like asking whether we should be taught to breathe. But you ask me for my answer to the question of the thread. Fare enough. Yes, equality (before the law and in terms of opportunity) is more important than is the so-called natural order of things. As children of God we rightly count ourselves as striving to live above the natural order of a dog-eat-dog world. God put us here to do so. By enshrining the ideal of such equality we participate in another ideal, i.e. striving to be the very best people possible. Here are just two small examples. As an employer wishing to fill an advertised position I will consider you on the same footing as any other citizen who wishes to compete for the position. That's what equality means to me. As a disciple of Christ I will share the gospel message with you without regard for characteristics that so many people have historically counted as reasons to discard you such as your lineage, your income or any other thing or reason that Christ himself would count as irrelevant.

I would disagree with this assessment, too. There is nothing about the varied degrees of glory (neither hypothetically nor in reality) that should be construed as violating an egalitarian principle.

Post a photo--we'll all get back to you on that.

No, we can't, hahaha. I have no more interest in talking about basketball. Start a thread. For now, I'll give you what you want with regard to short basketball players.

The definition of equality, or the definition of marriage? We can quibble over whether or not to call a Supreme Court Judge a politician depending I suppose on where we each stand on a given question, but I don't really want to. I'm more interested in the questions I put toward the OP: Should I take it then that your answer to your question is that equality should not be all that important? Do you advocate dropping the ideal of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and replacing it with a self-evident truth all men are created unequal? Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive?

Right, but I didn't say it's common. I said I think we could find players. All we need are two. If I'm wrong and there aren't any at all (or only 1) I'll happily concede, but you don't really want to spend time on this detail at the expense of the real intent of my remark, do you?

But it isn't just politicians deciding. Many times it's people going into public service to right the wrongs established and perpetuated by other people. Such as less qualified people getting jobs ahead of better qualified people, or qualified people not even having a chance to apply for the job in the first place. Another example would be a man getting paid more money for doing the same job as his female co-worker (and doing it less effectively). And with Gay Marriage it wasn't politicians deciding men can't marry men--it was long standing traditions based on criteria other than politics.

Of course all humans are in some way or another created unequally in the terms you offered as an example. Are you suggesting that that such inequalities are to be considered to interpret the intent of the drawers of the Declaration of Independence? I doubt it. So, I'm prone to discount the hypothetical of an unqualified player to be included on a college team. However, at the risk of being drawn of the trail by a smelly fish, hahaha, I would say that as a matter of principle in the spirit of the ideal cited in the Declaration of Independence you ought to have the chance to try out. Parenthetically, I think we wouldn't have too hard a time finding players in the height range of, say, 5'5" to 5'10" who made college and professional teams, and are considered by most objective standards to have been excellent players.

Should I take it then that your answer to your question is that equality should not be all that important? Do you advocate dropping the ideal of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and replacing it with a self-evident truth all men are created unequal? Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive?

I wonder if she fibbed when the post office clerk asked her if the package contained anything liquid, hazardous, or perishable?

Really? Sounds like a bargain at that price, hahaha. Then again there is that old adage that one gets what one pays for. The way I figure, I'd anticipate spending more than $10 taking ladies out over the course of a month so a website service fee would feel like a reasonable thing to pay--to me anyways. But if all I wanted was online conversation I suppose free would be alright, too.

Yes. Actually, I would appreciate such a title, too.

@Traveler Isn't it true that for a given (thing) to be observable you and I must be able to observe it with use of the same senses either simultaneously or under identical conditions? You are not entitled to claim (to me) that you empirically observed "X" if I don't obtain the same results according to the conditions you say existed and with the same senses you say you utilized, are you?

I didn't say any of that matters. I said that it interests *me*. It doesn't have to matter to you, Anatess. The rest of what you mentioned isn't really relevant to what I said since I had already agreed with the business owner's decision. Your husband is probably an effective parent, and no doubt so are you.

I'm sure you're correct. I feel badly for people losing their jobs, of course, but with the information currently available this news story appears to me to be a case study in the wisdom of looking before one leaps. There are still many things I would be interested in learning. (Not because I'm looking for reasons to play judge and jury so to speak but just because I'm interested.) I would like to know more about other details such as who the people were, their positions, and performance histories, etc. I looked at the company's website, and BCI appears to be a pretty high quality player in what it does. I wonder if it's considered by most as a great place to work, and if there were easily another 30 applicants waiting in the wings to work there? Or, if conversely it's perceived differently? GIven the prominence of the customers and jobs completed as shown on the website I'm prone to imagine the family that owns the business is well respected in the community. It would also be interesting to me to learn more about that. Zooming out a little I noticed last night that at least 100 people have been fired around the country presumably under similar circumstances in connection with the event these 18 workers attended.

OK I see your point there. But I'm still focused on the report of what the boss said. I understood that the *reasons* for the employees absence was essentially irrelevant. The employer's justification was work-related not politics-related. That's what I'm focused on even though the news reporting does what news reporting typically does, i.e. makes it easy to look at things that are not truly part of the story. I'm supposing that if this case were to go before a judge for wrongful termination, the employees' motivations for being absent wouldn't be relevant to the case. At least what I understand so far makes me relate more to the employer than to the employees *in terms of what I say the specific issue really is.*

I'm not following you entirely. You and I apparently agree on the points we both mentioned regarding the work immigrants do. But I didn't express anything regarding our borders, illegal aliens, etc. Was that aimed at my remark, or was it simply an aside? Apologies if my parenthetical remark was vague or misleading. I'm seeing this OP as more of an employee-employer relations issue despite the obvious other issues of-the-day regarding illegals, borders, etc.

The principle is sound. But in this case it's more accurately described as "you don't show up for one day ... no more agreement". It's certainly within the employer's rights in their state, of course, as long all other stipulations are met as mentioned by the interviewed representative from the department of labor. I'm curious about the mention that the employees informed their supervisor(s) but no mention whether the employees were told before the absence that they were not approved?