Why I don't believe in equality

FakeName123

...and why that doesn't make me a misanthrope.

Why I don't believe in equality

1. Believing is for religion

While by now the views towards equality are repeating like a mantra and certain people and groups treat it like a religious, almost cultish view - the conversation around equality is still that of a societal and ethical point of view. No amount of repeating one is for equality will make the argumentation more valid.

2. People are not of equal worth

No matter how hard one tries to rationalise it, a cripple will never be of as much worth to a functioning society than a working member.

What is meant with equal worth is solely based on the ethical point of view that any life is worth the same. I do agree with that, but it's utterly irrelevant to the societal worth the equality argument is based around.

3. Affirmative Actions, lowered standards and such

These are per se ridiculous. A person should get into a occupation, education, etc. solely based on their merits rather than having an advantage due to being part of a minority or underrepresented group. A person either is good enough or isn't.

Now if a person is good enough, but lacking in monetary possibilities - I am all for scholarships. But getting a scholarship, because you are a one-legged black homosexual? No, thanks.

4. Men and women are different

This reality known for centures is still true. Biology doesn't change that fast. Men and women are fundamentally different. Water is wet. The sky is blue.

But lets look at it objectively. What reason would there to have no fundamental difference between men and women. If we go from an evolutionary point of view, if men and women were meant to be the same - we would be hermaphrodites. Yet, we are physiologically and also psychologically different.

That being said - if a woman is as capable as a man (see #3), she should be able to do whatever she wants. If she isn't capable though, because i.e. a job requires physical standards, then it's unfortunate for her as an individual - but she will have to deal with it either way. It is more likely though that the freedom of choice will naturally have women still lean towards certain kind of occupations and men towards other kinds.

5. The loss of gender identity and rise of androgyny among men and women destabilises society

Men aren't better women and women aren't better men. Trying to achieve some sort of androgyn society will ultimatively be a societies demise. We need men and women to be able to complement each other. We need men and women to be two equally important, but different sides of the same coin.

While I am all for learning from the other gender, it is at least as important to also embrace your own gender identity. There is a lot of beauty in both gender to be found.

6. Equal opportunities do not result in equal outcomes

Having equal opportunities will not result in equal outcomes. Trying to force equal outcomes undermines individuality and is the mindset of a totalitarian. Several socialist countries have tried it in the past and more than enough are still doing so. It doesn't matter if it is/was China, Cuba, Eastern Germany, Hungary, etc. - all of those tried to push equal outcomes and it failed.

Aside from the obvious that people are different - why did it fail? First of all a key issue is that equal outcomes will result in a lack of competitiveness which thus results in a steady decline of a countries economy. The second issue is that in order to have the living standard the same for everyone it would be necessary to have the lowest possible denominator where everyone could meet. This would naturally be a step backwards from most of ours living standard.

Personally I have been born in a former socialist country which changed their system as I grew up. While I have to say that it had some merits, it is simply dysfunctional in the long run. The reality of things is that people are equal and equally poor, but some are somehow even more equal than others. The thought-process that if everyone is the same, everyone has a decent life is childish and naive at best - infantile and dangerous at worst.

7. Forced equality undermines the beauty of individuality

Simple as that. Forcing the people to be equal - especially equal outcomes - will undermine and diminish the development and expression of individuality.

8. A common symptom of a decadent society

The desire to make the life better for everyone else in a society has happened in wealthy societies all over the past. Ancient Egypt, Rome, Babylon, etc. were all similary decadent.

The problem with this mindset is that it forgets about the attributes which originally brought these societies up. It stunts any further progress which was build up prior on the backs of the population. Not to be mistaken with the fallen men in war, but with the hard-working class who build cities and countries from scratch.

9. The more power you put in the hands of a government, the more dangerous it potentially is in case of tyranny

This is self-explanatory. By pressuring the government to make people more equal we not only give the government more power, but we also reduce our own freedom of expression.

In the worst case scenario of government tyranny having handed so much power to the government makes it even worse.

10. Life isn't fair. Everyone has their own baggage to carry.

That's correct. Life isn't fair. Some are born in a rich family, some are born in a loving and caring family, some have an abusive parent, some have certain talents and so on. Life is not fair. No matter how hard you try to make it fair for everyone - it will not work.

The reality is that everyone has their own baggage to carry though. Everyone has their own challenges in life to master. The rich kid could have been raised without a parental affection. The smart kid could be socially stunted. Life is way more complex to just place basic guidelines of what is considered more or less privileged than others. In fact life is so complicated that people will not even disagree on what is considered being privileged. And this also leads to the last point:

11. No one is responsible for your well-being, but you

That's right. The reality is that you are not important, the world doesn't revolve around and will still keep spinning without you. Thus no one is obligated for your well-being. It is alone in your hands.

Yes, you preferably have people along the way. People who support you, aid you, help you. In the end though whatever your path and however rocky it may be, you will have to walk and overcome it with your own two legs. That is what makes us human and that is what makes us grow. You will not grow as a person based on an easy life. It is you who are reponsible for what is making your life easy or difficult.

That being said it naturally is preferably, if people are kind and helpful to each other - but that doesn't change the reality of how dysfunctional equality is.

Long story short: Equality is an utopic and naive way of thinking. It stems from the lack of consideration for the reality of things. Most often it comes out of a good intent, but that's irrelevant as it is dysfunctional either way.

Why I don't believe in equality
11
40
Add Opinion
11Girl Opinion
40Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • hellionthesage
    I would point out as you mentioned with your remark, "No matter how hard one tries to rationalise it, a cripple will never be of as much worth to a functioning society than a working member." is not necessarily true. It is only true if we compare that particular deficit to anothers non deficit. Stephen hawking for instance has pushed our understanding of the universe forward despite his disabilitiies so overall his worth would not be less then a fully functional person and in fact if that fully functional person has not utilized there abilities he could be more valuable albiet in a much more limited capacity (though to be fair few match what he can do to begin with). So I wouldn't disagree with your statement but as you yourself said its considerably more complicated then that. Biology creates a minimum and maximum limit however most never come close to there maximum limit so even if another person has a lower cap say on strength, if they maximize there ability while others do not that higher cap in ability doesn't matter. If that makes sense. So overall I would agree with that slight alteration/acknowledgement.
    Like 2 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • Naturally there are exceptions like Stephen Hawkings and Milton H. Erickson. My statement as a generalisation is true nonetheless.

      And let's face it, without our advanced living standard both - despite their gifted intellect - would be deadweight on a society.
      But as I said - humanity and equal human worth is valid nonetheless and I am definitely not for just letting them starve away or some sort of eugenics.

    • I understand what your saying but again one cannot reduce an entire person down to a singlar attribute. For instance my uncle has polio in his legs so comparing him to a runner obviously he will be the inferior but at the same time he could probably win any competition dealing with upper body strength (he has arms like a gorilla and he is in hi sixties) So does that mean inferiority? Some people are naturally better at some things then others so would that then mean that if they are not as good at one particular task that they are dead wieght? I would say its more like having all of your eggs in one baket, as long as you are able to utilize that strength (and do it exceptionally well) then you have compensated for that weakness. There are plenty of people who have a disability/weak disposition towards something but through training they have exceede that which the average indivdual does (despite having the potential to do more). So I think actualization of potential is a far greater

    • determinint of value then limitations. Obviously there are extreme cases like Hawkins where technology is absolutely necessary for there functoning but again as long as he is able to contribute more in that paricular strength then its not relevant that he cannot do anything pysical. In the case of Milton H. Erickson (I did not even know about him till you mentioned him, thanks for that) it could even be argued that what he discovered was directly linked to his disability. So while I agree with what your saying to an extent one must also acknowledge that a debilitation is only such if you don't know how to properly utilize it either through learning from it or letting it motivate you towards a prospective goal both of which do contribute to society. So while its imparative that we acknowledge limitations (something our society seems to refuse to do) its also important to acknowledge that between potential and actualization of potential, potential is worth considerably less.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • COCOCHANEL
    i agree with your points
    LikeDisagree 22 People
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

1039
  • OpenClose
    1. I was going to say “Yes!” to the title, but then I started writing “I believe” a lot and decided not to be a hypocrite.

    2. “A cripple will never be of as much worth to a functioning society than a working member.”
    Two words: Stephen. Hawking.

    3. Affirmative action reinforces stereotypes and division. When a black person gets into Harvard because of a quota, every black Harvard student’s credentials are called into question. THAT is unfair. If there are no blacks at Harvard, that is a symptom. Treat the problem, not the symptoms.

    4. My take on gender is to make no assumptions based on someone’s gender. Everyone should be free to be who they are rather than fixed in some predestined role based on their genitals. But this includes the freedom for each gender to like different things. When everyone is free, we make different choices. Guys will generally prefer different things than girls, but all options should be available.

    5. Actually, gender differences are more pronounced in post-agricultural society. In hunter-gatherer societies like those in the Amazon and Papua New Guinea, gender differences are less pronounced than even modern androgyny, as you would refer it. Women can be hunters, men can be gatherers, it’s just that most of the women aren’t as excited about the hunt. By the way, gatherers provide the vast majority of the food, which throws out the idea that providing is a “man’s job”. The hunters provide much of the meat and hide.

    6. See #4. I find nothing more insulting to women or minorities than the idea that they did not choose their own college major, but are pure subjects of their environment with no independent decision-making skills.

    7. THIS. But moreso in the direction of policing people’s decisions and interests. I’m actually one of those “libtards” who believes many basic needs should be socialized. In fact, I believe that socializing basic needs frees up capitalism in many ways. But I’m a cultural libertarian.

    8. Rome as an example, a lot of times the views on equality and quality-of-life are what allowed empires to expand in the first place. And most of these societies collapsed more form #9 than from #8. One problem is that people dodge the hard, dangerous, or dirty jobs because they are so looked down upon. Society is built on agriculture, we need to raise the prestige of farming.
    Like 3 People
    • OpenClose

      9. Yes. The government should have little or no cultural control. But my view is that the government should also be transparent and held accountable.

      10. This is part of the individuality portion more than it is who is more or less worthy of life and livelihood. Remember that we are a very social species, and nothing is accomplished on one back alone. Many people together overcome any individuals’ weaknesses.

      11. Yes, definitely. Though I am still in favor of raising awareness for group-related issues and struggles.

    • 2. I talked about that in the comments with Helionthesage. Hawkings and Erickson are exceptions, but my general point still stands. Feel free to read the conversation though ;)

      4. I think making assumptation is completely fine and natural. Giving people the chance prove you wrong is what matters - but its completely fine that you make assumptations that men and women are different in many ways. Of course I am all for the freedom of the individual to express themselves.

      8. Of course rome didn't fall solely because of that. It revolves around many factors coming together - but this was one of those. Also I agree on you that a lot of dirty jobs are looked down on. Especially farmers and construction workers are way too important for a functioning society. Let's face it, if the system breaks down no one cares if you have been a bankster or whatever - but people will care about what actions of value you can instantly contribute.

  • Thor696
    Everyone has worth... but the basic points in this article are spot on. Simply saying that the author is a bigot... when he cites many solid scientific facts, is a dodge.

    It's like me saying... that if you believe everyone is equal... you're really just jealous of the accomplishments of others and want them brought down to your level.

    In many ways... men are superior to women. In many ways... women are superior to men. Speaking generally here (which is all we can do) ... men have strong points that women are weak in... while women have strong points that men are weak in.

    It's yin-yang, and at the end of the day... these strengths and weaknesses balance out.

    For instance... one strength women have is they are FAR LESS irrationally violent than men are. This is proven by the number of men in prison for violent crimes.

    I think women tend to be better communicators.

    They are certainly better nurturers to children than most men are. Remember, we're speaking generally here.

    Fact is, men carry evolutionary baggage that gives us some pretty big negatives... like a propensity towards violence in certain situations, even when violence doesn't make logical sense.

    Testosterone plays a big role in how we men behave. It makes us more aggressive and it makes us more FOCUSED. It drives us to stand out from the pack - because that is how males attract mates.

    While evolution and hormonal differences instill a lot of negatives in men... they also produce beneficial traits as well.

    Our competitive nature (again, instilled by evolution) has resulted in great technological acheivements.

    And men (if socialized properly) ... become great defenders of women, who less physically able to counter violence directed at them by violent males.

    Part of that socialization I mention above... should be a RESPECT for women. I open doors for women. I will not tolerate a man beating on a woman, or abusing her sexually.

    But these kinds of "chivalrous" notions are considered, ironically (and laughably) "misogynistic" in these present times.

    There are differences between the sexes when you look at them in general. Those differences are instilled by evolution and nature... THEY ARE OKAY AND THEY BALANCE OUT.
    Like 2 People
    • Yin-Yang is perfect, but I dodged to use it for this MyTake as it would just have people run away even further from an already unpopular opinion ;)

      "For instance... one strength women have is they are FAR LESS irrationally violent than men are. This is proven by the number of men in prison for violent crimes."

      I don't think it's the irrationally violent part. Women can be as irrationally violent as well, they just aren't as destructive on it. The difference I think is that men have difficulties expressing their negative emotions which often then gets valved in violence. Also men are higher risk-takers.

      "And men (if socialized properly) ... become great defenders of women, who less physically able to counter violence directed at them by violent males."

      I quote something from a psychologist whoms name I forgot: "People treat society like they were treated as children."
      A lot of men are exposed to violence. Rapist for example in most cases have been victims as children themselves.

    • Aside from those additions I fully agree with you.

  • JinJune
    Accepting difference and discriminating is different. Yes, individual people should be treated differently. Equality means that people should be treated fairly and equally and specifically according to their needs.
    LikeDisagree 11 People
    • Why would I be obligated to treat people equally? Why would I treat a woman the same as a man? Why would I treat a rich politician the same as a homeless beggar?

      Your view is far away from any reality and simply impractical and illogical.

    • Azara

      so how would you treat a woman or a poor person compared to a man or a politician?

    • Thor696

      @Azara Politicians have power, I might treat people with power with a bit more respect, especially if they can exercise that power over me. It's called the power dynamic. You treat your boss differently than you co-worker (if you want to get ahead in life). I treat women differently than men... I open doors for women and come to the defense of women when they are attacked by men. Two men fighting - I just watch.

    • Show All
  • Lolomon
    I gotta say I agree with notion that a lot of these equality arguments are illogical , utopia like and for people who can't handle the real world. I also agree people who cry equality are also people who are against something so they indeed don't practice equality. But that all agree wit
    LikeDisagree 5 People
    • Name one argument for equality that is illogical, just one. I dare you.

    • @Song4TheBroken

      "Women are still underrepresented in male dominated spheres due to discrimination and oppression."

      How about this repeated argument based on the fallacy that women, if they have the freedom of the choice, will be equally often make the same occupation choices as men.

    • That's had nothing to do with equality though. What you've just presented is called a strawman argument. If you don't know what that means then I'll explain it. A strawman is a logical fallacy where you completely misrepresent somebody's argument and attempt to refute that argument, even though that was never the person's argument to begin with.

      The argument you've just made has absolutely nothing to do with equality. Equality is about equal opportunities for everybody and non-discrimination. It isn't about forcing everybody to be the same and do the same things. We have no way of knowing whether the reason for women being underrepresented in male dominated spheres is due to discrimination/oppression, or simply because they choose not to enter those spheres.

    • Show All
  • Phoenix1991
    I get where you're coming from but I have to ask one simple question.

    Let's say Larry and Daniella are both very intelligent, both do the same amount of work at a company and have the same exact position at their workplace, both started the job at the same time. Why does Larry get paid more money than Daniella?

    If all their credentials are the same, why different salaries?
    Like 2 People
    • Because in most cases Danielle is working less overtime, does take more time off, has the financial risk for the employer of getting pregnant, etcetc

      Depending on what statistic you refer to there are also additional flaws with the research like comparing full-time with part-time workers where women are way more likely to be part-time workers.

    • First off : I mentioned their position in the work place is the same, work the same hours, etc. Why should she paid less if she puts in the same work.
      because she's capable of being pregnant should not be a reason to decrease her salary. California offers the paid leave for mothers.

      Second : if a woman applies for full time, she should get the same exact benefits as anyone else including a man.

      I'm not some male feminist (if that even exists), I'm just pointing out the obvious unethical truth.

  • Kirah
    All of your points seem to indicate "equality".

    By that I mean actual equality, not the kind of "equality" that some feminists try to enforce (affirmative action is not equality, it's sexism).

    Good take.
    LikeDisagree 7 People
    • Actual equality is equal rights. We have that already in the west. The rest comes down to individual choice where especially the gender will naturally differ greatly. Equal opportunities is utopic and unfair in its own way.

      That's how I see it.

  • ginnyweasley
    i hate everything you stand for. We are cut from the same piece of cloth just remember that.
    LikeDisagree 23 People
    • And still you can cut a coat or a jeans from the same cloth. Just because both are important doesn't mean both are the equal.

    • All people are created equal in rights, dignity, and the potential to achieve great things. True opportunity requires that we all have equal access to the benefits, burdens and responsibilities of our society regardless of race, gender, class, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other aspects of what we look like or where we come from. The theme of equality was central to our nation’s founding, with the declaration that “all men are created equal.” Our country’s history has witnessed the gradual evolution of that core principle from a ruling class that countenanced slavery and subordination toward an egalitarian vision that embraces the inherent equality of all people. We fought a civil war in part to give life to this proposition. It is embodied in our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under law, and in the other Civil War amendments. And epic social movements of the past two centuries have moved our country, in fits and starts, further still toward the reality

    • Then we apparently have a fundamentally different view on what equality for the founding fathers mean.

      To me it means that you have equal opportunities in terms of the freedom of choice to do with your life what you want to do. Not forcing others to give you the same possibilities. These possibilities you have to achieve for yourself.

      Additionally I am still missing where in the west we don't have equal rights or dignity. What you are trying to do is forcing society to make life equal for everyone not based on opportunities, but outcomes by the notion that if everyone had equal oppurtunities we naturally would see the same amount of whites, blacks, women, men, etc in all occupations and education-fields. That is a fallacy though.

    • Show All
  • Adraido
    Although I agree with most of your points, let me ask you this: How do we solve the problem of companies trying to hire based on race without affirmative action? Racism is a huge factor that becomes a huge obstacle on what is fair. What is the solution? How do solve the problem of who is fit for a career, who deserves to be punished and who deserves justice without a definition of what is fair?
    Disagree 3 People
    • There is no solving. People will benefit other people they feel more relatable to. In a company run by men it will be men being favoured and vice versa for women. In a country where the majority of people are black, black people will be favoured.

      It is basic human nature and forcing people to change that simple bias is impossible. And seriously - if a company doesn't hire a better equipped and skilled worker because of whatever factor, then it is their loss. As a self-employed person myself I can guarantee you one thing: If you are good what you are doing, you will always get a job.

      Justice theoretically should be neutral - unfortunately judges aren't. I have been the victim of that myself. Shit happens, life goes on.

    • Adraido

      Alright, I see your point.

  • jacquesvol
    People should have equal rights and equal opportunities, whether you like it or not. :)
    LikeDisagree 14 People
    • People do have equal rights already in all western countries. Only reproductive rights aren't equal (for a reason).

      Equal opportunities are bullocks as it is impossible to achieve and to force upon people. You have the equal opportunity of having the freedom of achieving whatever you want to. No one prevents a black/homosexual/woman/etc to become rich, powerful, educated and so on, but if these people want to achieve that, they will have to work hard for it. Tough life.

    • jacquesvol

      Ok, you don't get the job because you're white with freckles because I'm the boss and don't like white people with freckles. Possibly my customers don't like them either. And I don't want to lose customers because I hied you.
      No job for you. :D

    • So? If you don't want to hire me as your potential best subject on your own subjective bias - then that is a loss for your company. If I am skilled enough, there are plenty of other places for me where I get hired.

  • Beautybynature
    I don't agree with marriage equality. If you accept gay marriage than don't discriminate when a person wants to marry their toaster
    LikeDisagree 16 People
    • But why should people like you and me care if a guy wants to marry their toaster. Let them do what makes them happy, you just worry on making yourself happy or whatever.

    • Adraido

      Exactly, let them marry cereal for all I care. Who am I to judge or define marriage?

    • Marriage equality is a topic I didn't focus on as I have an entirely different view on it altogether which probably would have enough space for a standalone MyTake.

    • Show All
  • Rawrzz
    Though, I do tend towards utopic ways of thinking. We should always strive to get as close to perfection as possible. Besides. Human society adapts the way it does for a reason.

    But, I'm not so elitist. I despise classism and capitalism. They're systems built on the idea of domination and subjugation. When, in reality, all it does is throw people in a dog pin and throw a piece of steak in between them. Humans aren't naturally like that. I don't believe that. Humans are more cooperative than competitive and dominating. Capitalism just enforces greed and domination.

    And, I'd say the government is somewhat obligated for it's society's well being. Or will you decide not to have police (well, if you're not black) or firemen or the military or social security? Those are socialist, government organizations/programs. How many others?

    There is a way to make socialism work. There's a way to make anything work. You just have to find it. And I'd say striving for equality is worth trying.

    Some would say true socialism has never existed in the world.

    I could show you so much about individuality that you would--so long as you're not a psychopath--very much dislike. There are significant horrors that erupt from enforcing individuality.

    And. In the end. Tell someone they're not as good as someone else, press them down into the dirt, let them start from an unequal position and tout 'life isn't fair, get beneath my boots', and you might just get a hole in your head. You back any animal into a corner, and you get the result of modern capitalism: lots of violence and crime. Throw out the idea of equality, and you'd get something much worse, in my opinion. People want what they want.

    Sounds like you're up for the wild west and chaos. Are you an anarchist or an uber capitalist? Or both?

    And what about the middle class workers who 'built the countries'? Leave them to be manipulated and used by bourgeois? It seems to me that you are in favor of an innately unequal society--*striving for inequality*, as opposed to equality. Not simply allowing inequality.

    Capitalism is a festering disease. Classism is a festering disease. It's domination based on an arbitrary value. Humans have more worth to them than simply an ability to make money.

    You simply can't be 'equal', so we may as well have left the slaves in chains, right? Your position is totally opposite to mine.

    And it really sorta does make you a misanthrope. Elitism might be construed similarly.
    • Rawrzz

      But. It wasn't a bad post. I'll have to think more on what you've wrote here.

      Though. I would like to add one more thing. Everyone is responsible for everyone's well being, to varying extents. The only reason we got this far is because we helped each other. That's what makes humans strong. Not individuality. The collective.

  • Fortres
    While you aren't fundamentally wrong on any except point eight, there is an undercurrent of bias and false foundation running though it. You also see to think that what one does, the choices one makes and a society as a group make, in addition to the ability and dynamics of a family raising children, have no impact on the child/person. Yes, we are responsible for ourselves, but we are also influenced from all directions, every day of our lives, and that can't be discounted. Inside, you do know that, saying a smart child could be socially stunted, etc, but same as post eight, you refuse to emphasise with anyone else's struggle and that makes you a member of society I don't wish to include. Therefore, I don't need to help you see the light here, but I can still say my piece and leave. Women and men are different. Fact. But No one is above the other. Point four, the only point necessary to make for this my take, also the one largely left unsubstantiated, unleashed and largely untouched. Yes, women and men are different, but not in the ways you think, and merely elude to. In healthy, natural, real ways, that ought to be embraced for their strengths, on an individual basis that happen to have congruence along gender lines, but not held to those, not punished when they aren't in line with traditional or assigned values, not discriminating (and yes! That includes no preferential treatment! But you can't conveniently ignore what sort of oppression and mistreatment brought about such measures in the first place) for any reason, and that is the real concern. Not that we are the same, but that we deserve to be accommodated reasonably and compensated adequately and fairly. We being everyone, equally. It's not a tough concept, you're just resisting hard because you're looking at it wrong. You stuck in the me vs you mindset that plagues the first world, and the only viable futures in community empathy and connectedness. All for one and one for all, but you probably just hear communism.
    It's a simply matter of mindset, the truth is there but you see it how you want.
    • You have written so much without saying much of value.

      - I said that neither women nor men are inferior to the other as a whole. No point in repeating.

      - Looking at equality rationally doesn't mean I will treat everyone like a hearthless, cold douchebag.

      - I don't treat men and women the same, because they are fundamentally different and I think gender roles are healthy and natural. I don't mind exceptions to the rule, but I do mind the forceful destruction of those.

    • Fortres

      I could say the same about you (in fact I basically did), with the addition of though not of much value, certainly of some detriment.

  • The_Empty
    Haha, well, that's the perfect logic... of a total narcissist. You have no right to determine the worth of other people, no right to claim why others deserve nothing, and no right to decode how lives and who dies. You're so self-righteous, and pretentious, don't forget about pretentious. Your post elevates yourself to the level of a god, deciding who's worth what, and what's right or just, but any person that would do that is completely deluded and can be neither right nor just.
    Like 1 Person
    • Reading comprehension, bro.

      I wrote the point of societal worth from a view which is as objective as possible - leaving any emotions, ethical reasons and whatnot out. And if you look at it objectively - then a cripple almost always is worth less to a society than a perfectly healthy person.

      If you would have read on though, you would have realised I also wrote "What is meant with equal worth is solely based on the ethical point of view that any life is worth the same. I do agree with that, but it's utterly irrelevant to the societal worth the equality argument is based around."
      That means I do value that every life matters and that ethically speaking any person has value - even if it is just to their close ones.

      So before you rant about pointless things you should read properly first.

  • mexborough
    ok, so you base your stuff on an 18th century understanding of humanity... and then you say men ad women are equal but don't deserve to be equal.. Also anicent Romen never embrace equality, what fucing history books do you read? loololol...
    LikeDisagree 5 People
    • mexborough

      you also have a naive view of equality. no egalitarian ever says everything must be equal. only in basic terms of living standards, legal rights. all else is up for grabs, since you're right the world is an unfair place. if person A is good looking and well-educated, person B is ugly and dim, both should still have same legal rights.

    • 1. Thinking humanities biology changed within 2-3 centuries is the epitome of arrogance. Evolution and mother nature doesn't change that fast. 200-300 years are a dog-fart in the grand scheme of things.

      2. Nowhere did I say that men or women are equal. They are equally important with their own natural strengths. That doesn't mean they are equal though.

      3. I did not say in Ancient rome people were equal. What I said was "The desire to make the life better for everyone else in a society has happened in wealthy societies all over the past.".
      This refers to all kinds of welfare, affirmative actions, additional rights, etc.

      4. Living standards being equal is impossible and utopic. You reap what you sow. To make it simple: A hardworking person should be rewarded over the lazy one.

      5. People have equal rights in all western nations except for reproduction rights, so the point is irrelevant.

    • mexborough

      ancient Rome never believed in universal
      welfare. read a history book..

    • Show All
  • Not-Exactly
    I agree with general idea of your points , specially the opportunities and results point.
    Yes as an individual you should be aiming for the Utopian community, but not by blinding your self from what is the whole community really is and to what depth it is descenting from forcing this ideas on it while "hoping" for the best.
  • MoshingExec
    Equality does not strive for equal outcome it strives for equal opportunity.

    You are equivocating on the word equality. Basically using several definitions of it while going into your sermon. You need to define the word and stick with that definition. Certainly a cripple person is not "equal" based on one definition of the word. However, equality, at least in the US, means equal rights for a suspect class. It doesn't mean everyone should be the same, look the same, think the same, etc. You points are all marred by your either deliberate mixing of definitions of equality or by your ignorant mixing of them. Define equality then rewrite your diatribe.
    Like 1 Person
    • Using seemingly intellectual words will not make your lack of argumentation any better. But let's go for a few facts:

      - In pretty much all western countries there are equal rights in place already.
      - Equal opportunities would require force upon any single person and thus causes more harm than good. Instead the only equal opportunitiy necessary is equal freedom to achieve. The system is nowhere preventing anyone to get a proper education and occupation with it to make it job-related. Even if a handful of individuals might do.
      - Equality right now is a jumbled mess of different views on the matter and this take attempted to refuse most of those different views. If there was the one and only single correct equality view, I would have only argued against that one case.

      Now it's your turn to provide anything of value. Or you keep hiding your lack of argumentation and your attack on my argumentation behind rhetoric.

  • Azara
    who are you to say when a world fails. you've only been here for a speck of time.
    LikeDisagree 13 People
  • 05candyman
    How do you measure worth? Do we use a barometer, or spectrometer? Maybe a thermometer? Do you not understand that our physical universe does not know right or wrong, good or bad, worthy or not worthy. If these are not fundamental attributes to existence, why hold them? Why believe them? How can you truly measure someone's worth? to the cripples wife, or his kids? his worth FAR exceeds yours, its all a matter of perspective. Worth, cannot be measured in a universal sense. Why not be a good person, be smart, be productive, and work towards bettering yourself, people you know and people in general (in that order).
    Like 3 People
    • 05candyman

      forget about negatives things or negativity in general. Stop judging people

    • That's why I limited the worth on what worth that person is to a society and not to the individuals around them.

      A handicapped person who is dependant on welfare, etc is naturally worth less to a functioning society than a person who is working hard and effectively paying the welfare for the handicapped person with their taxes. With the later, the former will have a tough time even holding on to the living.
      That's why I made a clear distinction between human/ethical equal worth and societal equal worth.

      Further my statement was general. The exceptions doesn't make a general statement wrong. Read what I wrote to Helionthesage in the comment section.

    • 05candyman

      No, i get that, but why focus on these things. So what if the handicapped guy can't contribute to society in ways others can. Our society is strong enough to hold these individuals on our backs until they can get on their feet. and if they never do, so be it. What do u propose we do about it other than help them?

    • Show All
  • Song4TheBroken
    Do you truly think that any of your points are valid? Like really? I dare you to reply to me and I'll shut down every single one of your 'arguments' (they're all either strawmen or just incorrect).
    LikeDisagree 4 People
  • R3d_Anonymous
    "The smart kid could be socially stunted." Raises hand! Yep, that's definitely been a huge challenge for me that I'm continuing to struggle with greatly.

    I agree with your myTake overally. Very realistic and authentic.
  • Show More (29)
Loading...