A Study of AUNT

[scottycelt]

#165

1) Really ...? ... crikey ...
2) Good heavens, I didn't know that either ...
3) Ahhh, yes everyone should have 'equal opportunity'. So a slender, frail old woman should be able to apply for a job as a labourer in the same way as a fit, strong young man. But if you were the employer would you see much 'equality' between the two? No two people are 'equal', they have different characteristics and things to offer
4) Put simply the employer should pick and pay accordingly whom he/she considers the best (less risky) candidate for the job whether old, young, male or female, parent or childless.

[Mr Pee]

#165


3) Ahhh, yes everyone should have 'equal opportunity'. So a slender, frail old woman should be able to apply for a job as a labourer in the same way as a fit, strong young man. But if you were the employer would you see much 'equality' between the two? No two people are 'equal', they have different characteristics and things to offer
4) Put simply the employer should pick and pay accordingly whom he/she considers the best (less risky) candidate for the job whether old, young, male or female, parent or childless.

The logic of those last two statements is so blindingly obvious I cannot understand how anybody can query them.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The idea that "human nature" is to be selfish and competitive is often met with, especially from people who are looking for ways to justify inequality and/or injustice, but it doesn't hold much water. One could just as easily say that "human nature" is to be cooperative; otherwise it's hard to imagine how the first large human communities could ever have got started - as an example the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in Turkey is estimated to have had a population of 10 000 at its peak, where, moreover, "the uniform amenities and comforts of the separate buildings paints Çatalhöyük as a strikingly egalitarian ancient society. Adding to this is the absence of any rich landowner class; studies of the artifacts reveal a balanced distribution of wealth and influence; it is no surprise equality was experienced by both genders with the absence of a competitive wealth-seeking male hierarchy," according to archaeologists. This is almost ten millennia ago.

So things improved after Cain and Abel . . .

[amateur51]

You really are being very silly, even by your own standards. I don't simply provide links to support my view like you but mostly in response to members who only seem to understand what they wish to understand and put up barriers to proper argument. Vinteuil asked what I meant by 'human nature' in much the same way as the definition of 'equality' now seems to be a bone of contention among those who previously and constantly espoused it! I did answer Vinteuil's question, after Wiki's account of the very common term ... you may have been far too busy thinking up your next barrier to forum discussion.

If one is queried on the meaning of the term 'human nature' it follows as day follows night that the same debating tactic can be employed in the very similar case of 'natural justice'. You claim ff's meaning is 'quite clear'. I agree. But so is the meaning of 'human nature'. Selfishness, competing for the best jobs, most attractive partners, all that sort of thing. So you don't understand that? What planet do you live on? I merely demonstrated that anyone can put up rather tiresome barriers to proper debate when they discover that they've lost the logical plot!

I have worked for 'co-operatives' which contained amongst the most self-serving folk I've ever come across. Of course there are people who genuinely strive to be less selfish and share with others but I'm sure they might be the first to admit they often have to fight their basic instincts (human nature) to do so.

Does that answer your question, if you are really all that interested?

I hope the Nobel Committee for Advanced Blethering Award has taken note, for this is a fine effort, even by your standards.

[amateur51]

The logic of those last two statements is so blindingly obvious I cannot understand how anybody can query them.

And that is your tragedy

[amateur51]

So things improved after Cain and Abel . . .

Bishop Ussher's maths live on

[Richard Barrett]

Bishop Ussher's maths live on

Indeed.

It's strange, though, that the arguments from a pessimistic view of "human nature" (selfishness, greed etc.) so often come from the very same people who purportedly look to the New Testament for guidance on how a good life should be lived. Jesus seems not to have been aware how hopeless the task of overcoming "human nature" is - if he had been he would no doubt have stuck to making chairs.

[Mr Pee]

And that is your tragedy

Drama Queen. <winkeye>

[french frank]

So a slender, frail old woman should be able to apply for a job as a labourer in the same way as a fit, strong young man. But if you were the employer would you see much 'equality' between the two? No two people are 'equal', they have different characteristics and things to offer

Exactly - they have different things to offer society, consequently a slender frail old woman would not apply for a job which she was patently unable to do. However, she would not be refused a job because she was 'a slender frail old woman' but, as with 'a slender frail old man', because she would be unable to do the job. In other words, decisions would be made on the basis of the obvious individual characteristics; not some vague generalisation about women.
By your standard Stephen Hawking should have taken a big pay cut from his late 20s onwards when he developed motor neurone disease. A very 'unequal' human being...

4) Put simply the employer should pick and pay accordingly whom he/she considers the best (less risky) candidate for the job whether old, young, male or female, parent or childless.

But in reality, the 'logic' of some employers in this respect does breach anti-discrimination employment law.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The good Bishop's maths makes no difference: Cain and Abel (Genesis, not New Testament) were the sons of Adam and Eve, thus Barrett's Marxist chums at Çatalhöyük must post date them. However, Barrett's Damascene viewpoint of looking for the best in people, rather than his more cynical approach, is to be welcomed.

[amateur51]

The good Bishop's maths makes no difference: Cain and Abel (Genesis, not New Testament) were the sons of Adam and Eve, thus Barrett's Marxist chums at Çatalhöyük must post date them. However, Barrett's Damascene viewpoint of looking for the best in people, rather than his more cynical approach, is to be welcomed.

I thought you were referring to the modern version

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kane-Abel-Anniversary-Jeffrey-Archer/dp/0330509683/ref=la_B000AQ0T3W_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381749102&sr=1-4

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Unlike you, I haven't read Archer's book (what a surprise), but I'd be amazed if he makes any reference to Bishop Ussher.

[Richard Barrett]

looking for the best in people

I always look for the best in people. Sometimes however it is very well hidden.

[Serial_Apologist]

2. Human beings have evolved to make more of their lives than the business of choosing a mate and reproducing. The purpose of employment, in the human world, is not about finding a mate and reproducing.

Scotty will not understand this statement, so profoundly has he internalised the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and applied it to his own avatar. How he is able to distrust his own nature while not being able to distrust his own distrust is beyond me, but I don't think there's much point in trying to persuade him to the contrary.

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed.

It's strange, though, that the arguments from a pessimistic view of "human nature" (selfishness, greed etc.) so often come from the very same people who purportedly look to the New Testament for guidance on how a good life should be lived. Jesus seems not to have been aware how hopeless the task of overcoming "human nature" is - if he had been he would no doubt have stuck to making chairs.

Well I think they're mostly Old Testament-related if one goes by Tea Party fundamentalists of the American Bible Belt and their would be hangers on here. However, regarding Jesus we should remember that in his words we still need the deity's salvation (and there's only one) to attone for our essential, in the Christian view, sinfulness.