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: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Unity_99


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


That is quite the non-sequitur.

The idea that we are born with a blank-slate, and therefor all created equal at birth, or “born good but corrupted by society” as Rousseau and the romantics would say, has been fundamentally disproved, and is nothing but a dogma without merit. See Chomsky’s “Verbal Behavior” or Pinker’s “Blank Slate” for arguments. A blank slate can do nothing with experience merely painted on it. Experience must interact with innate and inborn capacities of the
“slate”, the biology, in order for something to come from it. This dogma is still quite prevalent in the social sciences, however.

One could say he values life indiscriminately and equally all he wants but he still wouldn’t lay in a bed of fire-ants or snuggle cockroaches, and he’d still prefer the comfort of a human to an octopus.

In other words, he lies when he claims his valuing is indiscriminate.




posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We are indeed equal. We are all F_____ up!



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I can see how some very competive judgemental ego based athiests might think its all about how bright and aggressive you are, how healthy and goal oriented, and naturally women's women who would never abandon their children, and children in lesser circumstances s the vast majority of people on earth are, are walked over by these competitors.

But then my grandfather was an athiest for years, one of the most intelligent, 140 IQ, humble, decent, family oriented, Norwegian Socialist, handsome and wonderful man on this planet. There are none that compare actually. He would have given the shirt off his back to anyone in need and was friends with the native Chiefs, considering them the natural caretakers of the land. And his understanding of equality is like mine. No one had to teach me mine, its the one we're born with.

Its the asshats here who bend it out shape, valuing nonsense.

Life is a testing ground, a chance to grow consciousness bigger in a denser more real wave form universe. My version of what the cosmos is, is akin to an infinite information internet field and all corporal beings are logging onto their body bot computers and rendering little portions of it with the computer programs, and those programs erect it into a holographic reality for them.

Now, infinity itself should be a topic considered in great depth, because its the basis of everything, infinities within and without and what we're all a part of. Consciousness itself is infinite. And yet we're operating with blinders on in tiny portions of it, to learn something, experience something, overcome something, or help a loved one do that. Its the only way a self aware infinite being can truly grow more, by sending in a portion of consciousness that forgets who it is and learns more. And we keep on doing this.

So, consciousness can grow or regress, larger or smaller perceptionally. More empathy and understanding, or less empathy and more run with body suit. Metaphoric Darth Vader, more machine than man. Beast in the bible. The computer not its operator, the operator losing intellect and consciousness and associating with the machine instead of mastering it.

In any case, the Higher Road of Progressed Consciousness, ie Highest Love and Goodness beings/Family, would consider the greatest person, the one in the most fragile or vulnerable position, the most forsaken person. Thats what Love does.

These aren't things I had to learn, was born knowing them. The language to express them, and data to flesh it out, yes had to learn that.


edit on 13-12-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Rousseau was a 17th century writer/philosopher. A nativist, believing that children are born with a conscience and a sense of fairness. Human nature is good until corrupted by society,he had invested some time on the subject of inequality,offering the idea of the "noble savage" living a moral life in the state of nature
some points to note:

All questions about inequality and modern society depend on one question: what is natural?

There are two types of inequality: natural (or physical) and moral. Natural inequality stems from differences in age, health or other physical characteristics. Moral inequality is established by convention or the consent of men

Natural rights and laws mean nothing if we do not understand the nature of man. There must be a correlation between the two for natural laws to mean anything. Therefore, to understand what this nature is, we have to take reason out of the equation entirely.
ref:www.sparknotes.com...
www.csulb.edu...



edit on 13-12-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Aren't we all unique in our own ways? We are equally unique and we all deserve equal treatment. We're all part of the same world and all come from the same source, spiritually and Earthly.

I'm pretty sure all wars and genocides have started with the words "we are not equal", shortly followed by "we are better". Being equal does not mean the same thing as being the same. We are all sharing this planet, if people don't see the equality within all of us we get what we have today: wars and genocide.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
...we all deserve equal treatment.

Define equal treatment.

Equal standards for acceptance? Equal representation in jobs? Equal representation in decision making bodies?

How are you going to react if an ant hive is hooked up to a computer and communicates its expectations for how planet earth and humans should be?

I'm not denouncing honest respect for all variations of existence, but "equal" is an easy word to say, but a difficult word to overlay over experience and actions.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TrenchRun

I would define it like this: treat others as they want to be treated.

To treat others how they DON'T want to be treated is to suppress their equality. We all have ways we want to be treated, that is the equality we share. To hurt someone else is to break their right to equal treatment because you yourself would not want to be hurt.

I hope I stated that clearly enough, its somewhat of a tough concept to put into words.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I would define it like this: treat others as they want to be treated.

I want to overthrow the entire communist mentality single handedly and lauded throughout history as the one who finally broke open the gates. Treat me that way.


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
To treat others how they DON'T want to be treated is to suppress their equality.

But what if they simply CAN'T defend the quarterback as well as 90% of your other candidates? What if you give them a chance, and they cost you money but refuse to accept that the way they want to be treated is damaging to others?


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
We all have ways we want to be treated, that is the equality we share. To hurt someone else is to break their right to equal treatment because you yourself would not want to be hurt.

There is a difference between a person who wants to try out for a role but accepts if they aren't accepted versus a person who demands to be accepted no matter the consequences to those depending on the role being done well.


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I hope I stated that clearly enough, its somewhat of a tough concept to put into words.

That's because it's impossible to put into words.
edit on 13-12-2014 by TrenchRun because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TrenchRun

All three of your examples involve money, of course someone is going to be treated unequally. What I'm talking about does not involve money which is corruption in and of itself, I talk about things that money can't buy like love and empathy. If you love and empathize with someone then you are treating them as equal because you feel their pain or joy. There is not enough of this in the world because of those who treat others as their inferior because of money status or skin color.

As far as your first example, you have it backwards. Why would you want to be conquered and overthrown if you're the one whose trying to gain power? "Treat others how they want to be treated", not "get treated the way you treat others".

Respect and love for other life, I think that's a better definition.
edit on 12/13/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/13/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
"We are equally unique", though paradoxical in how you frame it, and contradictory in its grammatical form, simply means that we are unequal. It becomes obvious to me at least that the idea that we must all be in some sense equal or unequal is a denial of human nature in favor of logical uncertainties. We are not clones, nor are we alien to each other. How does an egalitarian rectify this principle? They do not. They deny it.

It's difficult and dangerous to think about, and probably not a task for the ignorant, but we should not have a fear of these ideas if truth is of any concern. Should we be treated equal? I've already asked, "By whom"? and "according to what standard"? Those who hold power determine the standard of equality, how one is equal, no matter whether this process is democratic or totalitarian. The Jews in Nazi Germany were not seen as equals, but they were viewed and treated equally, according to some vague caricature, or how they were "defined" in the Nazi propaganda and nomenclature. The idea that each human is different, an individual, unique, with their own experience and physical proximity, their chance to prove their inherent value, was denied them. Their differences, their individuality, their own place in space and time, their bodies, their concrete person-hood, were not considered. They were imagined to be the same, not unlike how egalitarians imagine the entirety of humanity to be. The idea that every human is indiscriminately equal is not only logically impossible, but is merely another such standard, a caricature, however differently it is framed and expressed. I claim it's an attempt to confine and limit what it means to be human according a definition, and enforcing that definition the moment an individual doesn't live up to it, or how I see it, proves the idea "human" to be wrong.

I argue no—no one should be treated equally and indiscriminately, or in other words according to a standard, without thought, without consideration, without contemplation and regard for their individuality and their states of affairs. Claims of social equality, equal opportunity, equality, are simply buzz-words for the idea of fair treatment. Equality does not mean fairness.

Fairness in a society is possible. Equality isn't.

Further, the idea that we are all created equal (Jefferson, the Bible, Plato, Locke), as if we are all pressed into a mold and spit out on an assembly line with a blank slate, is simply untrue and does not logically follow. We are all born individually from other individuals, in individual contexts, circumstances, and space in time. Logically and empirically, one individual cannot equal another individual. A particular never equals its universal. And if equality simply amounts to the proposition human = human, well then, fantastic work, how could anyone deny that?

Do homo sapiens share common capacities across every culture, and thus every human, around the globe? Of course. No culture has ever been found without aesthetics, without music and dance, without language, without morality, sports and games, age-grading, funeral rights, courtship, education, religious rituals, abstract thought, and so on. Yet human behavior never is, nor ever has been, equal in these respects.

"Equal", and thus its polar counterpart "unequal", when applied to human beings is an error, for they are applied to categorical and mental rather than actual entities. Uniformity, invariance, sameness, equivalence is never found in human affairs. But the inability for people to discriminate between individuals, rather than the categories they place them in, remains.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So are the elements composing my body inherently different than the ones that compose yours? What about the atoms that make up those elements, are they inherently different as well?

Does your mind function off of electrical impulses? Hey, mine too.

What about the world we share? Or is it money and ethnicity that divides the world, the things that you perceive as our inequality?

Do you have a heart, liver, lungs, brain, feet, hands, etc.? Me too. Do you have an equal right to life as I do? We all got it for free, we all own it equally.

We're not as different as you think. We all come from the womb and we will all die one day. We all share the same world and we all came from it. Dig a bit deeper.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
There's a difference between equality and sameness. Equality is understanding that we are all here as human beings, and so, on that level we are all the same and understanding that inspires empathy and compassion.

Sameness is everyone acting exactly the same and everyone being one race or skin color.


edit on 13-12-2014 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Equality is not about sameness, but everyones uniqueness.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I understand the notion that we are not equal is scary, and because of Nazism and notions of eugenics, and hierarchies of spirituality, notions of class, the ideas have been used to disastrous effect. What was wrong with their assumptions was not that these lineages were different, for instance the Brahmin is not a chandala, ie. they live differently, believe differently, speak differently, which is true, but that they were scrutinized according to an arbitrary standard of equality as enforced those in power, ie. that the chandala is of a lower standard of purity, which is complete and utter assumptive nonsense.

But I am not speaking of logical entities, ie. Jews and Germans, or Brahmin and untouchables, which are separated and grouped only mathematically. I am trying my hardest, but with an admitted difficulty, to speak of concrete entities, each and every instance of a human being as they come to me, with my own eyes and powers of discrimination. I do not wish to consider the notion of a human, but I want to consider and contemplate the actual human, and when I do so, I find no equality, nor any need for it.

I've traveled extensively my whole life, lived in many cultures, and you're right to say we do not behave that differently with one another. Get anyone alone, away from their group instincts and tribe, individual to individual, on the whole and on average you will find a beautiful commonality, a similar moral sense, an acceptance of another, humor and disposition. We laugh, we dance, we cry, we suffer, we express ourselves, but we do so in our own ways. If there is anything we are equal in, it is capacity.


So are the elements composing my body inherently different than the ones that compose yours? What about the atoms that make up those elements, are they inherently different as well?


They do not occupy the same space. Yes they are inherently different. We are not equal.


Does your mind function off of electrical impulses? Hey, mine too.


They are not the same, nor equal, electrical impulses. They happen in different places, in different bodies, in different ways.


What about the world we share? Or is it money and ethnicity that divides the world, the things that you perceive as our inequality?


We sharing a world does not imply we are equal. We also share the world with rocks.


Do you have a heart, liver, lungs, brain, feet, hands, etc.? Me too. Do you have an equal right to life as I do? We all got it for free, we all own it equally.


None of which is equal. An elephant has a heart, liver, lungs, brain and feet. We are not clones. Does anything have an equal right to life as you do? Look around you. Have a bite to eat while pondering this question. The answer is an astounding no. It becomes obvious that the "right to life" is a principle applied sparingly.


We're not as different as you think. We all come from the womb and we will all die one day. We all share the same world and we all came from it. Dig a bit deeper.


I come from a different womb, from a different space in time, and I will die differently than you. We have different bodies, and therefor, everything that occurs within them are different. Do you accept this? None of it is equal. The logic and the facts do not compute. Don't dig so deep to where your head ends up in the sand. Go back to the surface and take a look.

In the end, I don't think a dogmatic egalitarian would consider myself, my actuality, but only his version of what it means to be equal, expressed from his own unique mental lexicon, which exists nowhere else but in his own mind, but is nonetheless applied to others. This is where the division occurs—in considering one's own self, which includes ones own thoughts and ideas regarding others, before considering and learning from the others in question. It is a fundamental error and is irrational to derive conclusions and and make value judgments from the idea of an entity rather than the entity itself. It is dangerous to be so indiscriminate with our thoughts.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme




There's a difference between equality and sameness. Equality is understanding that we are all here as human beings, and so, on that level we are all the same and understanding that inspires empathy and compassion.


Unfortunately, it is a given that we are all here as human beings. No human is here as anything else. There's no need to point out the obvious. It changes absolutely nothing in how we treat one another by simply understanding this.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't understand... what part of my post was dogmatic? You don't believe everyone deserves equal rights? That includes punishment if they infringe on another's rights just to be clear.

Just because we are different does not mean we are not equal. 2+2=4 and 1+3=4, they are different yet they are equal.

Also, just because the world around me shows people hurting others doesn't mean the victims didn't have an equal right to life as the attacker.

I was only sharing my view, it seems you are the one uninterested in others thoughts and only your own. Your OP is expressed from your own unique mental lexicon. What makes your version any better than mine?



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
While not literally the same, or equal
still A good read..
discovery.ucl.ac.uk...
edit on 13-12-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
All three of your examples involve money, of course someone is going to be treated unequally.

All of my examples involve exchange.


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What I'm talking about does not involve money which is corruption in and of itself, I talk about things that money can't buy like love and empathy.

You can love and empathize with 100,000,000 people and still be incapable of giving them anything of value that they want and/or need.


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If you love and empathize with someone then you are treating them as equal because you feel their pain or joy.

If I deny someone a role in a production because they aren't as capable as another person, I assure you I am feeling both of their pains and joys.


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
There is not enough of this in the world because of those who treat others as their inferior because of money status or skin color.

Words.


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
As far as your first example, you have it backwards. Why would you want to be conquered and overthrown if you're the one whose trying to gain power? "Treat others how they want to be treated", not "get treated the way you treat others".

Listen to what I said. You said treat others as they want to be treated. I offered an OBVIOUS absurdity, yet still a real world example of what someone will come to you with as "how they want to be treated". You have to accept that at *some point* you will not treat another as they want to be treated because you perceive their way of desiring to be treated as either impossible or destructive in a way you simply can not support.

Words are easy. Actions require exchange.


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Respect and love for other life, I think that's a better definition.

Words.

Respect and love other life that wants to, as gently and lovingly and for the greater good as they can, eradicate you. Try it.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


I do believe this "all men are created equal" was a direct jab at the idea of divine right of kings. Probably born out of John Locke renderings and certainly then a jab at English high mindedness itself. At that this egalitarian idea trickled down slowly.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


"all men are created equal"


Written by a bunch of slave owners.
The irony of history is often hilarious.
In a dark sort of way.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join