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.

 

Equality...

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
This thread calls for NO RACISM, NO OUTRAGEOUS SEXISM, NO UNNECESSARY RIDUCULE, NO 'HATE'.

To explain on the disclaimer above, no racism is to be added into this, such as demeaning names, such as saying a general group of people are such (stereotyping), unjustly, ridiculing a group, generalizing one group, for a persons actions, such as saying all white people are hitlers, because their white, or saying all blacks are mugabes, because their black, and so on and so forth, is uncalled for, and I will report, I post this here, because ATS knows better then that, I hope so, and call for a CIVIL talk about this!



Now, for me, I'm all for equal rights, for all homo sapiens.

Although, as I look into things, it seems, that we're not all equal, racially, and gender wise.


Brain wise, we all differ, very significantly, from race to gender, none of us, brain wise, are equal.

So do we all deserve to be treated equally?

I for the one and the few, believe that voting, should be for those, 'qualified', not just for anyone over the age of 18.

That, there should be a test, you should take, before you're eligible to vote.

I know friends who got their license and can't drive for ****. So why at the same place, must they do less to vote for a leader of their country!

Back to the original point, should we all be treated equally?

My 11th grade teacher, I still remember him saying, (I'll leave out his name, I loathed him though) brought the idea to the class, for what reason I'm not sure but it was pertinent, he asked the class, whether or not women deserve equals rights, and if they do, should they in turn, be able to be drafted into wars? As opposed to now?

It hit me, because we all fear a draft, in any time, we never know the future, but for me, I personally, would run like hell to Canada, *dual citizenship!* but my friends, would go, but the girls, would be safe at home, with equality to the men, who die for them.

But they want equality, in certain aspects, but not all!

If a ship is sinking, the first is obviously, the children and women! What about the men? Is it just a 'screw them' mentality? Why should men be brought down, to the least, the most worthy to die!

Now, for me, I would gladly, happily, give my life for a woman, child, or man! Note the last part of that, man.

My fellow brother. I would like to have that be my Choice. Not an overguiding force.



As the days go on, and on, I find that minority groups- Women, Children, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and so on.

Are given more and more rights, and better rights.


More so, do I see 'hatred' on the White Man, I being a white man, have no problem really, with any group!

I throw my arguments, and simplistic jokes, but nothing personal.



I offer a reversal of roles, solely!

What if:

Women were the first sent to war, in times of a draft, only women.

What if:

Blacks were the first, and only, sent to war in times of a draft.

What if:

Blacks, and women were last to board a floaty if a ship was drowning?


What upheaval would there be, what outrage and racist calls would there be, what gender would attack those for wishing the worst upon them in times of need.


For those who don't know me personally, I'm an organ donor, one whose family is strictly against it, ones whose friends loathe the idea of being an organ donor (just spent 2 hours debating it in person right now, gosh it was awful!). One, who studied each candidate extremely well, before voting in the 2008 election.

Also one who has not stopped studying after the 2008 election!

One who sought refuge in ATS' 'greatness' since 2006!


So I ask this, with the meandering above, do we truly deserve to be treated equally?

"All men created equally".

Well feminist may not 'like' that quote for consciousness raising factors, but still, what does it mean?

That all men, and women are created equally, which is not true, I am not equal to my sisters logic, and she is not from mine!

I am from logic, up of logic, down considered of her.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Demcracy is a con, so it does not matter your brain size etc... lol, you pick who they want.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Nah I disagree.

Women were created for male entertainment so they can kid themselves all they like.

Im not sexist, im a realist.



In case someones just ate their keyboard at that comment, it was a joke and I bet it will crack up a few in the wrong way.



On a more serious note I do think that certain lines must be drawn when it comes to equality. We are even seeing reverse discrimination now, its getting way beyond a joke in my opinion.

I guess with the financial crisis right now we are all going to be equal anyways, unemployed.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
this is just an opinion. white men have enjoyed most right's throughout the century's and like it or not have been responsible for the lack of equalities given to others. In the west our lives are dominated by white men. In the media, In religion In Politics and business. If we want equality for all then changes need to be made in these areas which the white man dominates.

That is if you really do want equality for all or equality that is comfortable for white men.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by XXXN3O
 


You can tell what I thought of when I first read that friend!


The lines are being drawn, and we gotta figure out where they are, and more importantly, what they represent!



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

should we all be treated equally


The truth is we aren't all equal. My co worker is smarter than me. My neighbour is thinner than me. My brother is richer than me.

All people should be treated fairly.
We just aren't all equal.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
The best way of testing a certain groups stance on things is to simply give them power and see how long it takes until they start to abuse it.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
reply to post by XXXN3O
 


You can tell what I thought of when I first read that friend!


The lines are being drawn, and we gotta figure out where they are, and more importantly, what they represent!


I dont know if you know this but supposedly the iranian police/army has a female division, just showing that its not only the west that has equal opportunities.



Be afraid, be very afraid, they seem to be good with swords.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I don't know who said it first, but it wasn't me: Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. When a society switches from believing in equal opportunity to believing that all must get equal results, then we fall into a quagmire. Because if you promise equal results (like workplace quotas, comparable pay, etc. based on race or gender), you do force employers to pick 'minority' employees for advancement over equally qualified non-minorities (white males, basically).

Now, before the feminists jump all over me, I have felt the foot of a guy that I trained on my back as he became my supervisor. I didn't like it one bit! In hindsight, many years later, I know that he was the better candidate, not because he was male, but because he had the leadership ability that I lacked.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


What would you suppose, without demolishing all rights of the white man?

Second line?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by novacs4me
 


I appreciate your contribution, not sure of what to add though


To XXNEO.

Video for everything, and yes, Iranian women,

wacha wacha woah, wacha wacha.
lol, there crazy!



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by novacs4me
I don't know who said it first, but it wasn't me: Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. When a society switches from believing in equal opportunity to believing that all must get equal results, then we fall into a quagmire. Because if you promise equal results (like workplace quotas, comparable pay, etc. based on race or gender), you do force employers to pick 'minority' employees for advancement over equally qualified non-minorities (white males, basically).

Now, before the feminists jump all over me, I have felt the foot of a guy that I trained on my back as he became my supervisor. I didn't like it one bit! In hindsight, many years later, I know that he was the better candidate, not because he was male, but because he had the leadership ability that I lacked.


That is very true in my opinion.

In manual labouring jobs for example, how can a 5ft 2 woman with a slim build lift as much or as high as a 6ft tall well built male. The end result is that the woman gets paid off from employment due to failure to meet targets.

This does happen, I have witnessed it myself.

There are certain things that one sex can do better than another but for some reason people just cannot admit this. Dont get me wrong though, a 5ft 2 male with the same build would have the same result but normally they would not get a job like this in the first place but the woman would due to the equal opportunities policies in place. No doubt i must be sexist for mentioning that though


The truth hurts.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


What would you suppose, without demolishing all rights of the white man?

Second line?


maybe a bit of positive discrimination in some areas of public life to represent the population. It's not like we havn't used negative discrimination in the past to hold races and gender back from achieving the type of opportunities we white men probably take for granted. i'm sure this wouldn't go down well with the white establishment or many on here. But, i think there are certain institutions that could benefit from positive discrimination. The government and police force are a couple of examples i think of here in the UK.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Equal opportunities is about giving people an equal bite at the cherry, not about thinking we are all equal at everything. So the man CAN apply for the child care job, the woman CAN apply for the building site job.
But they have to meet the 'person specification' as we usually call it in the UK.
Many years back we had positive discrimination in the UK. So an employer could target groups that were under represented in their recruitment, promotion and training policies. I have worked in organisations where women or certain ethnic groups were fast tracked through the training and promotion process - leaving those who could actually do the job better, on the sidelines. Cue major resentment! I do believe this policy is illegal now. There are better ways of addressing this sort of thing.


[edit on 2-10-2009 by unicorn1]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
In your system, those who were found to be intelligent enough to vote (by whose standards are we measuring, anyway?) would be the ones intelligent enough to know that there is nobody worth voting for anyway.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
In your system, those who were found to be intelligent enough to vote (by whose standards are we measuring, anyway?) would be the ones intelligent enough to know that there is nobody worth voting for anyway.



Q and A, of the constitution, and that's it.

Just simple.

And in a true way, that would be good enough no?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


No, of course not. In England we don't have a constitution anyway. We have several sources of Constitutional Statutes e.g. Parliament acts of 1911 & 1949, Bill of Rights (1689), Criminal Justice Acts, Habeas Corpus (1679), and we have Common Law (Judiciary), Royal Prerogative and Conventions.

Even with what (relatively little) I know, I doubt I'd pass any test on all of this.

Regardless, what you are advocating is a reversion to times when only certain classes were able to vote. People, foolishly perhaps, fought and died for a right to vote, and laws were put in place to ensure equality of humanity, not foregoing intellectual capacity, property or social status. I say foolishly as I'm of the strong opinion that democracy has failed in every country it has been adopted.

All party leaders are lobbied and have set agenda's advantageous to their lobbyists - moreso in the US tahn here - and so, particularly when only having 2 parties to choose from (that's no democracy!), the policies of both are corrupted and have been for hundreds of years, so why vote at all?

We're an intelligent bunch, humans. There's a much more gratifying way to live, and we all know it. So scrap the politics and treat it for what it has become, not what it once may have stood for.

Religion for that matter too... They founded a strictly secular nation when the Constitution was signed - "One nation under God..." or "We the people..." decide? I'd choose the latter.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Pr0t0]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
"Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".

President John Adams




top topics



 
2

log in

join