It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We are not equal

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
As the political zoo and menagerie of humanity lights their torches towards an ever increasing standard of equality—at least a standard of equality defined by some pop and majority nomenclature—this dark contrarian backs into the shadows in mutinous protest. Underneath a candle upon a wooden table, he scribbles.

“You so-called egalitarians, how dare you imply I am the same as another, the same as you, the same as the criminal, or priest, or judge, before I have even had a chance to prove myself to you.”

Perhaps a overly dramatic.

Yes, yes, I know; when you say “equality”, you do not mean that we are identical in biology, experience, stamina, vocabulary, strength, location, shoe size, skin color… well, anything really… except that we are equal in opportunity, worth, rights and value, which on the beautifully scarred face of it, are found to be nothing more than vaguely defined notions and lofty ideas once they are seriously considered.

Allow me to do the serious considering for you. Peering deeper into these notions we find these ideals are nothing more than linguistic fictions. Let it be known that “opportunity”, “worth”, “rights” and “value”, pertain not to any sort of reality, but to words someone once wrote down somewhere and made into law, with the notion of suiting the status quo, the many, the mores, and those who think they are free as long as they exist within these rules and regulations. We truly love this sort of irony.

These verbal swindles are perhaps necessary for a species that no longer considers the realities of their own languages—the rhetoric, the grammar and the logic of it. “Better to not concern ourselves about what we are actually talking about. Better to step aside and allow an old philosopher, or politician, or a bureaucrat decide what opportunity, worth, rights and value, really are. I will be there to fulfill it.” Hence we should all be treated equally. But by whom? And more—by whose standard are we equal?

Yet you betray me. Biologically we are not equal. Experientially we are not equal. Linguistically we are not equal. And so on. You do not equal me—and we should pride ourselves in our differences, which far exceed our similarities. The implications of this horrendous idea. Imagine everyone the same. But you cry and cry “Oh equality!” I cry back in great echo, “Oh mediocrity!”

More questions hit me. Do you look up to society, or the law, or the state , or a constitution as they were gods and demand that they protect you, give what is owed to you? Or is it that you picket or try to start a revolution because you are finally figuring out what it is your money is actually buying? Is it in their non-existent eyes you wish to be seen as “equal”? Trust me; you are. How laws define us in their texts, as a citizen, as a person, as a consumer, we are exactly equal. We have equal opportunity to fuel this machine by renting our bodies out to the highest bidder so we can pop coins into slots. We can always buy our equality.

Let’s be realistic. Those who seek to put everyone on equal grounds do so in their imagination. They have chosen indiscriminate and nearly arbitrary sets of values as their moral authority. Further, I ask you to guess which standard and criterion of equality these egalitarians have in mind when it comes to constantly calling for it. Surely not the homeless man, or the drunk, or the impoverished, insofar as they live up to their societal stereotypes, for that means they’d have to bring themselves down a level or two. Surely not the rich and powerful who need to be pulled from their comfortable heights and robbed of their inequalities. Surely not to the criminal, the sadist or the nihilist, for to be equal to them is frightening. No; this yardstick with which all equality should be measured is, of course, you guessed it, themselves. Equality in their image.

So let's be even more realistic. Every so-called social experiment that fought under the banner of equality—at least how it was defined in fits of nationalistic and revolutionary fervor and rhetoric—and whether it involved elevating those considered unequal, or tearing down those considered more than equal, up and down to some pre-defined common standard of what it meant to be equal, has never worked. But conversely, every manifest destiny nonsense that has seen everyone else as not-as-equal, or lesser-than equal, or of a lower caste, needing of a right straightening by some self-proclaimed moral authority, has led to the near-eradication of entire peoples. In both cases, it was the insatiable desire for equality itself, a template with which one can determine what equality means in another human being according to some abstractly preconceived and non-contextual rule-of-thumb before he has even met them, and without giving himself a chance to determine their worth with his own eyes and hands and heart, in the context of it happening, witnessing the difference in their look, their place, their mannerisms, their otherness, whatever that may lead to, combined with the value in both surprise and disappointment upon understanding that in fact no one is, was, nor ever can be equal—it was this tendency towards sameness that dehumanizes human beings.

Equal rights and equal wrongs? Equal pleasure and equal suffering? Equal opportunity and equal failure? Where? Lets just say that when it comes to in inequality, we are all equal.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis
edit on 12-12-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Now that was as an educating post full of insight and sincerity.I have to agree with you on that one, we are not equal and thank goodness for that!How easy it is to say I want equality and yet I will not put in any effort to receive the equality I so much think I deserve. How could we ever be equal in a system that price's differences? The game is rigged in such a way that even if we were all identical clones we would be forced to differentiate ourselves. The bully looks to put you in to a corner and that is exactly what the system does to each and every one of us. How is that achieved? with narration and a story line, it is achieved with beliefs. My father once said son you can believe you are a boiled egg if you really want to.So the master key is and always has been beliefs. Cut up belief and what do you get?



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
okay....so did WE go to the moon then?



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Although I agree with your premiss in regards to this reality, I still have to ask myself, if we were all born on an"equal" footing with the same experience and opportunity how different would we really be? We would still have our individualism and "see" things somewhat differently but that difference might be closer to twin siblings as opposed to typical siblings.

Meaning, if our laws weren't as such where loop holes in the "equality system" didn't provide certain people with advantages and the general concepts of service to self and ego were better understood, would we have such massive divides between our perceived equalities?

Asked simply, if 1% of the world's population didn't control 90+% of the earths "wealth", would we still be as divided as we are today?
edit on 12-12-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Can we all have "everything" and prosper equally?

I think not.

We are definitely not equal and those that complain simply want everyone to be the same so that we all get a "fair share".

Such individuals think equality is some kind of God given "right" or even a religious principle that encompasses what is "good".

Sometimes, things that we have acquired have taken much time and effort, take for example, a possession that belongs to you and only you, and that is totally unique - lets say you made it yourself. Now, someone might see what you have, and say "where can I get one of those" and you say - "you can't". They will obviously think that it is not "fair" because they believe that we can all "have the same things" because we are somehow "equal".

Such a person would be so bitter that they would even try to destroy it so nobody could have it, doing thier part for "equality".

I ask a question, what about a possession that is/was:

- Not purchased - money can't buy everything
- Unique - no one else can have it
- Indestructible - no one can destroy it
- Impossible to steal - no one can take it away from you

Such a "thing" would cause insanity amongst the populace in a world such as ours - "Why does he get to have that and we don't?"

Take the following factors:

Risk and Return - chance is a factor
Effort and Payoff - suffering is a good thing
Time - you cannot take it back

Most are unprepared to take risks, not prepared to suffer and want things instantaneously and have wasted their time whilst others have continued to strive during such time.

I have finally managed to build my sandcastle, despite it being crushed on many occasions, now, it is set in stone and in a secret location.
edit on 12-12-2014 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Guilty, I expect laws and rights to protect me. I don't worship them, but I try to follow them as far as the circumstances allow it.
And I also think we are all equal, we all need food, water, sleep and apreciation.
But I like the "in our inequality we are all equal". You and me are the same: poor kids of opulence.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
I'm sorry, sir, but you'll have to step back.

It's women and children first.


edit on 12/12/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
so in your opinion who is above the other?
the homeless vet that served in war and came back broken or the single mom working to raise up children living in a home provided to her compliments of the welfare system??
the vet gave us everything he had but because he did he has nothing to offer while the mom has taken what she needs but has the future being molded by her hands..

We used to take wide segments of or population and decide where to fit them in our society according the color of their skin or their gender and whatever classification we could think of. By doing this we limited their future many times since their birth. Legally we can't do this anymore but psychologically we often do! So many times we are still limited at our birth.


Problems come in though when the potential a person holds runs head on into those limits that society imposed onto them. Ever wonder if maybe just maybe many of our current problems could have been solved or prevented a long time ago but the person holding the key to the solution was of the wrong color or wrong sex or born into the wrong class and the limits society had set for them prevented them from providing it to us?

Every person should be considered equal at birth till proven otherwise at least! And quite frankly just about any person who holds a full time job in this country holds enough value to be paid a living wage. Since somewhere somehow society is finding a need or want for the services the employee is providing.. If this was not true the business the person is working for wouldn't exist!



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I absolutely agree but don 't be angry at the egalitarians, they meant well.
I think it has been a neccessary movement whose value is about to expire. For in this day and age some, like you, are realising that vague general notions do not benefit mankind anymore.
The same goes for the notion of freedom, liberalism in general even, for are we really free? for example: I still am obligated to consume an amount of nutrients once in a while to sustain myself and I am not a all free from the flow of time which will eventually even kill me.
You have pointed it out yourself; it's not the question of equality we are interested in, but the question of wherein we should be equal. As for the question of whereof we should be free.

I do believe we should be equal in opportunities as much as possible. We should also be free off any irrational interverance in our lives of our governments. Thinking about what this really means is the new role set aside for philosophers. Lucky for us, for it has been shown that trying to figure out a cohesive and all-explaining worldview is not only impossible, in the hands of the politicians it is really dangerous.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
My first S+F.

cheers.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




These verbal swindles are perhaps necessary for a species that no longer considers the realities of their own languages—the rhetoric, the grammar and the logic of it.


Government, educators say we are all equal; religion (we are all equal in the eyes of god).

Marketers, psychiatrists, say we are special and praise our individuality; religion (gods son died for you, you're special)

Its all a game - welcome to your illusion



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I think we all get that we're not equal. Jefferson's line in the Declaration of Independence about equality being a self-evident proposition probably started that extrapolated ball rolling.

The idea I believe, was to establish a system whereby all people were equal before the law. No royalty or special privilege based upon station. A government of laws, not of men. It's an ideal, not a reality.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
A living body is said to be structurally the same as a dead one, there is no difference atomically, and it give meaning about death embracing bosom showing no discrimination to what form of life.

Is the generations of poor or middle class persons genetically richer due to them having to face the trials of everyday life, where the factor of higher risk/ higher reward comes into play. While the fear of death or extinction come into to play, making the poor forget the discrimination of skin or cultures, mixing the generations sharing their strengths in the genetic makeup? Where as a poor person, has to do thing with their own two hands through blood, sweat and tears.

Is it spirit?

While the generations of the rich have become soft and fragile due to the easy, peasy life styles, having gained little reward for someone who's lifestyle believed to have everything. And the lack of survival skills or the use of maxims and manners are the only thing they could rely pass on? Where as they relied on the work of others to claimed success like they cheated on a college test for example thinking they know prosperity.

Is a poor woman more beautiful when she gains a life of luxury, having their skin cleaned of the dirt and grime from God earth that probably kept that skin healthy. Where as a rich woman can become ugly due to the use of cosmetics suffocating the skin with man made poison almost looking like a clown.

Almost like the difference between Snow white and the evil b*tch.

When God commences judgement, is everyone considered equal or does God have his favorites and picks and chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? Or is God favorites sent to death, punished by the laws that were Gods, like his favored son, whose was poor, but richer then any king for he... that he, with a capital H btw, was rich in spirit?

Or does Satan come along making sure there is no equal to the father and the son.
edit on 12-12-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
This has nothing to do with whether you consider equality born on equal footing and then diverse. Because diversity and equality do not mean the same thing. Equality is a intrinsically about the value of all soul and life. In a family, lets say a huge one, that chooses to pool its resources and opt out of the madhouse and establish a big eco farm with land for all, you may have, the genius, the good cook, the mother, the farm technician, the mechanic, the skills are diversely put out to survive the realm basically. You may have the gifted child prodigy, the mature one, the one who is butterfingers with all they try, the socially adept, the shy and fearful, the bully and dominator, the lost hippy drifting off into pscyhodelic worlds, the workaholics and the low energy "lazy" ones, ones who impress others and get great jobs, or opportunities and those who everyone overlooks.

BUT THEY'RE ALL EQUAL. AND A GOOD FAMILY, ie one that isn't spiralling down into hellish zones, provides equally for all, and wouldn't allow any to be overlooked and mistreated due to shyness, or value one set of skills more than another, and find ways to assist and help the ones using others or dominating them, or taking more than their share too.

All the while celebrating everyone's uniqueness, honoring the good shining out of those gaining more wisdom, awarding credit to the artist, the inventor, the problem solver, but being able to assist and nudge all upwards and no one left homeless or by the wayside.

We're all equal. Anything else is dark sided programs.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Whether one has integrity and love versus trauma or insanity and harms others, is nothing to do with integrity. That has to do with sanity and trauma or even perhaps soul toxins that need to be worked on. Equality is the platform for all beings, who grow up to their infinities in the end. The state they're in is a different matter altogether, and some of that relates to the greed and callousness of others who think they're more equal than others and allow horrible inequalities to exist.
edit on 12-12-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArieBombarie
I absolutely agree but don 't be angry at the egalitarians, they meant well.

I feel the most meaningful use of egalitarianism currently is as a linguistic tool to cast a clear light on the unnoticed or deliberately hidden aspects of those who have chosen to identify with an alternative label yet claiming to seek equality.

It becomes no better than the monsters it reveals if it's taken as more than a revelatory tool because it winds up falling down the same chasm of attempting to force square pegs into round holes.
edit on 12-12-2014 by TrenchRun because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrenchRun

originally posted by: ArieBombarie
I absolutely agree but don 't be angry at the egalitarians, they meant well.

I feel the most meaningful use of egalitarianism currently is as a linguistic tool to cast a clear light on the unnoticed or deliberately hidden aspects of those who have chosen to identify with an alternative label yet claiming to seek equality.

It becomes no better than the monsters it reveals if it's taken as more than a revelatory tool because it winds up falling down the same chasm of attempting to force square pegs into round holes.


Exactly!



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

edit on 12-12-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


so in your opinion who is above the other?
the homeless vet that served in war and came back broken or the single mom working to raise up children living in a home provided to her compliments of the welfare system??
the vet gave us everything he had but because he did he has nothing to offer while the mom has taken what she needs but has the future being molded by her hands..


I would argue there is no grand above or below the other, unless it is applied by personal prejudice. Equality and inequality are fictions. If one wants to make a rational conclusion based on evidence rather than applying generalized distinctions such as these, there can be only judgements made on a case-by-case and individual basis.

In your example, I could not make a proper judgement regarding someone’s worth without first considering what it is I am supposed to value: them or the stories you tell about them.

To whom are these people more or less valuable? Only to him who determines value, who in most cases are self-proclaimed moral authorities—politicians, priests, philosophers—who with gifted rhetoric, convince people to allow them to set partisan and partial standards everyone shouldn’t, but nonetheless do, follow. It is irrational to allow someone else to determine value for oneself.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Specimen


A living body is said to be structurally the same as a dead one, there is no difference atomically, and it give meaning about death embracing bosom showing no discrimination to what form of life.


There is a vast difference between a body that can sustain its own processes and one that cannot. People do not simply die without the structural integrity of the body being compromised first. There is obviously many differences between a deceased and living body, the absence of function being one of them.



When God commences judgement, is everyone considered equal or does God have his favorites and picks and chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? Or is God favorites sent to death, punished by the laws that were Gods, like his favored son, whose was poor, but richer then any king for he... that he, with a capital H btw, was rich in spirit?

Or does Satan come along making sure there is no equal to the father and the son.


There is no difference between saying one is rich in spirit and one is rich in money, and therefor worth more. They are value judgements made according to arbitrary standards governed by self-appointed moral authorities, taken completely out of context, and therefor irrational.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join