Bradamante's angsty philosophical rant of the day -- Bread and circuses

Hatter

4chan.

No, seriously. Bread and Circuses is like the Guns and Butter situation - it doesn't necessarily have to be bread or a circus; the terms just represent certain kinds of goods or experiences.

Circuses are entertainment.

Bread is sustenance.

Beholderess

Besides, if the circus is the internet, who are the clowns?

Everyone in the net, this one suspects

Super Lazuli

No, Hatter, you will not ruin my literalism.

I demand analogues for every component of circuses and breadmaking. NAO

DonZabu

>This one  could go on about how it is wrong that she believes in liberty and equality yet prefers clearly defined rules and  hierarchy  for herself

I've written a longish discourse on what these concepts mean philosophically in order to provide some alternate perspective. Would you care for me to post it, Beholderess?

^ 4chan are the guys who clean up the elephant cages, naturally.

Chagen

No, 4chan are the guys who shit in the elephant cages in the first place.

DonZabu

But they're not the elephants either. They just climb into the cages with the elephants and shit there for the hell of it.

Super Lazuli

[insert 4chan joke here]

Beholderess

I've written a longish discourse on what these concepts mean
philosophically in order to provide some alternate perspective. Would
you care for me to post it, Beholderess?

Of course, I'd  be  interested in reading it

DonZabu

There are two ways to take values such as these; the values as ideals (i.e, "two or more entities having the same qualities"), and as they exist within the lens of human endeavors (i.e, "black and white people should be equal").

When you say "I believe in liberty and equality", you probably mean the latter. If you mean the former, then we would have to take liberty and equality in their ideal forms to their logical conclusions; for ideal liberty, I can eat all the pie I want, but I can also kill people without consequence; for ideal equality, I'm the same height, width, eye color, physical ability, mental ability, etc, as everyone else. Not so fun.

So now let's consider the alternative. Taken in their ideal forms, rules are incompatible with liberty, end of discussion. But if you take them in their human forms, then the two values are negotiable; we guarantee the liberty to eat pie, but we place rules against killing your fellow man. Everything works out then.

So what I'm trying to say is, it all depends on to what degree you define these concepts, and the best thing to do is to find a healthy middle ground.

Hatter

Rights are only rights if they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

I've never had trouble with this definition.

DarkDecapodian

If we're interpreting things literally, at the time of the quote's coining, circuses referred to gladiatoral combat and the kind. Which ties in nicely with the primal urges tangent.

Beholderess

Well, this one's justification is that since rules are going to exist anyway, this one would prefer clearly defined ones instead of vague system of expectations.

As for equality, this one means mostly  lack of any sort of double standard. Not about people being the same, but applying the same criteria to them regardless of gender, race and so on. And about noone  being placed above  others without their consent.