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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheAnarchist

It sounds like you're telling me that we say one thing but mean another. I wonder wonder why we just don't say what we mean? "Oh, we're not literally equal, only metaphorically equal."




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Which law would that be?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Of course we are not all equal as individuals, in all things.

We Americans are very attached to the concept of individual merit, however, which can only happen if all individuals are given an equal "base" from which to start off on.

This is a lot of rhetoric, and I'm pretty sick right now, perhaps unable to follow along.
I just feel like cutting through it. Another poster described to me yesterday their experience in an African country, in which women cannot have their own bank account, in their own name. There is worse out there too. In some places, a persons life does not hold the same value as anothers because of gender, and murder is tolerated if it is of the de-valued gender.

The concept of equality isn't some lofty meaningless idea about how "God loves us all equally" it is a very practical and down to earth conception of societal system, which is necessary to install any practice of individual merit.
Without a basic framework of equal laws, then individuals cannot be judged according to their merit. If one gender is automatically eliminated from this system, then they might as well be left to die as soon as they exit the womb.

China has been doing that sort of thing for a while, and the effects of unbalanced gender population is starting to be felt-
The larger population of males is facing more competition for getting a mate, making violence amongst single men rise, and the pressure to become huge. Young men have to succeed financially before they can have a chance at getting a woman. They have to actually be a homeowner before they can be considered.


Which brings me to my second point - equal value refers to equal value to a society. The whole suffers if you take one of the genders out of it. For a collective to survive over time, individuals of both genders are needed. That makes them equally valuable to the survival of the collective.

And yeah.... people who are highly individualistic, and have no problem simply getting up and going to another part of the globe if the system they are currently in is not to their taste, they can easily shrug this off as unimportant to them.

But that is because others are dealing with it- others are engaged and active in building these societies for that individual to choose from. I am notoriously uninvolved in politics, and have trouble feeling any real investment in a lot of social issues around me, because I just figure the people around me will decide what they want, and if I don't like it, I can leave.

But I don't want to de-value what those people are doing, and what they are invested in- no more than I want to disrespect a waiter just because I can go off to another restaurant if I please.
I could never be a nurse either- I wouldn't be able to handle that job. But thank god some others can!

That choice is there for me because of people working hard and investing themselves emotionally, mentally and physically in bringing it into existence.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you missed the context of it. I could be wrong but the way I have always understood it is that "we are all equal before the law". This means that every man must be responsible for his actions.

I think you missed the application of it.

Responsible for actions? Look around.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The law of the land.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TrenchRun

I thougth that LesMisanthrope was talking about the phrase in general.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TrenchRun

I thougth that LesMisanthrope was talking about the phrase in general.

General by which standard? Point to the general all agree is The General.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Yes, we are not equal in many material ways, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be given equal opportunities. For example, purposefully sabotaging the education of certain classes of children, in order to give your own children an advantage is the worst and most egregious forms of sabotage.

It is one thing to allow people to be unequal, it is quite another to require and force people to be unequal.

For example, I myself have experienced sabotage in my own education, due to extensive gangstalking. Because they can monitor thoughts at all times and all places, many of my most creative thoughts have been stolen and given to others that "they" have deemed more worthy. This not only affects my mind in the immediate sense, but it leads to a gradual degradation of the ability and motivation to think about anything at all. Hence, after having your mind monitored for an extensive period of time, you start to lose your perspicacity, (Like Lisa Simpson, in that one episode), creativity, precision, rationality, ability to learn and master new subjects, ability to solve problems, and in some cases sanity.

If this is how the power elite "make" others unequal, then I believe this power elite deserves our rebellion, not our allegiance.

Things are getting better for me, now that I have a 3000 F blowtorch, I can literally burn off any sensors the gangstalkers have placed on the walls of the Iron Room I built. Also, now that I have an 8000W amplifier I can jam their thought monitoring sensors. So, in the end, they are the ones who lost.

One last note, beware of those who tell you grades don't matter, prestige doesn't matter, books and ideas don't matter, effort doesn't matter, because if you look at their backgrounds, often, they themselves have attained perfect grades and attended the most prestigious schools. Of course, it is easy to say that prestige doesn't matter when you are at the top.
edit on 15-12-2014 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TrenchRun

No standard, just in general, as it was first meant.


edit on 15-12-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ArieBombarie So in other words, philosophy is impossible? Platonic forms are impossible? Or are we unable to discern them? Is the question itself assuming too much that such forms exist? In any case Philosophy is dangerous both for those in power and those out of power.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TrenchRun



Some people's belief system of equality causes them to see everyone as less than human.


If you see other human beings as "less than human" then that is not equality.



You can see someone as an inferior opera singer without viewing them as less than human.


That's true, but we're not talking about opera singers, according to the Original Post we're talking about "us" (as in humanity, being equal - not roles (singers, architects, etc.)




However if we are all to be equal, we are all to be constrained by the lowest possible denominator.


You're either a human beings or you are not, no "lowest" or "highest".



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
If you see other human beings as "less than human" then that is not equality.

Careful with your pronouns.


originally posted by: arpgme
That's true, but we're not talking about opera singers, according to the Original Post we're talking about "us" (as in humanity, being equal - not roles (singers, architects, etc.)

The moment you move beyond the trait of "exists", everyone branches into their individual traits. Every moment and every decision of an individual is spent prioritizing their actions according to the specific individuals around them, and nobody responds to every individual equally.


originally posted by: arpgme
You're either a human beings or you are not, no "lowest" or "highest".

I didn't say specific humans being higher/lower. I said denominators. This is the very nature of standardization and the progressive lowering of standards.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
No standard, just in general, as it was first meant.

Either it's in general, or it's in a specific context (standard). Make up your mind.

"In context" via say the preamble to a national constitution... you are correct that it means equal before the law.

"In general" via say forcing equal representation in jobs/media/etc regardless of ability... that's an entirely different beast and is what the OP is referring to regarding the mediocritization of culture.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TrenchRun



Careful with your pronouns.


I was using the generic you (speaking in general).



The moment you move beyond the trait of "exists", everyone branches into their individual traits.


Very true, but there is more than "existing". We exist (we are a part of existence), that existence is expressed as human (we are a part of humanity), and then we are individuals. Everyone may not relate on an individual level, but on the human level, we can all relate. Almost all humans like to be treated with fairness and compassion.




I didn't say specific humans being higher/lower. I said denominators. This is the very nature of standardization and the progressive lowering of standards.


Which is great. An individual can be a comedian, singer, dancer, teacher, doctor, and can practice to become better and better at what they do and this can inspire other individuals with similar interests to improve even more, but all of these things are specific traits. Beyond the individual and our specific traits, we are still human, we are still living beings who (almost all) like to be treated with fairness and compassion.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

That's my issue. Everyone says, "of course we're not equal as individuals", and probably chuckles to themselves, but then immediately goes on to say we are equal in some other capacity—as citizens, as humans, as Americans etc. Sure we are categorically equal in some respects, and we we can be conceived as equal, and we tend to fall under some vague definition, but when we talk about "equal" in this sense, are we speaking about the individual human being, or the categories we have placed them in? Once we start speaking about and considering the category before the human being, we have stopped considering reality in favour of our own thoughts.

Yes, human = human. A citizen = a citizen. Societal entity = societal entity. However, a human being ≠ another human being. Although a society doesn't necessarily "see", and the human individuals who make it up do the seeing for it, "equal in the eyes of society" is dehumanizing, just as dehumanizing as "unequal in the eyes of society", because once again we are considering the category before we are considering the human being. How can one be treated with respect and dignity as a human being, when he is considered only according to his categorical and denotational allegiances?

My argument is that rights given according to allegiance of some vague category, ie. human, citizen, American, etc. is fundamentally false. The rhetoric should express the truth, that we are not equal, that we are concrete and real individuals with each his own capacities, and yes, that every individual should be given the same rights.
edit on 15-12-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dominicus

How did you come up with and express the notion "thinking is an illusion" without first thinking about it? At some point you must have thought about this. Perhaps you are dictating cue cards. Very strange, in my opinion.

There is a direct awareness, that life exists prior to thoughts, and that the thought of the rock is not the same as an actual physical rock.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Only a few elitists and dog eat dog beast like primitives IMO, social darwinism is the big slide down the snake to the beast kingdom in the big game of snakes and ladders we're all playing IMO, ever say things like, people are saying we're not equal as individuals due to differences, but....

No one thinks individual differences distract in any way shape or form from equality. Thats the whole point. We don't use terms like, we're not all equal in abilities. We don't have to be. It would sure be a terrible play if everyone was the main character. Or in a band, if everyone was the lead singer, or in a town, if everyone was the mayor. Whole town would grind to a halt.

Everyone is equal. And those who are traumatized by an unlawful slave system where a group of thugs felt so entitled to take all the land and resources from the people and set up musical chairs for homes and jobs, are equal too.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TrenchRun
The phrase as used in the OP is incomplete. When viewed in the context that I posted you can see that it doesn't really mean that people are equal in a general sense but rather in a specific way, the application of law.


that's an entirely different beast and is what the OP is referring to regarding the mediocritization of culture.

That may be what the OP is referring to but the idea is taken out of context because nobody says that everyone should be the same but rather that everyone have the same opportunities.

In might fail in the application but that doesn't change the idea and it doesn't give the OP the right to twist the phrase and apply his own definition just to rant on.

edit on 15-12-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SystemResistor
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.


You just hit it out of the park!!



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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


I bow deeply to you and go about my business.

2nd.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join