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.

 

The Cult of Equality

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEyeOfGod
 


It means what we lay it out to mean. It implies parity in those realms where we determine we desire or observe parity. It's meant the same thing, with the implication of rights/privileges for nearly 500 years of its use. It's not a newfangled creation. That's simply historically inaccurate.

What does it mean in practice? I'll repeat myself: it means parity with respect to protection under the law, and opportunity to pursue a decent life (pursuit of happiness, if you will). You mention that members of a nation might not apply it to other nations. That's fine. They may well not. But does the fact that group A might be unkind to group B render meaningless the concept of kindness, or its representative deeds? Of course not.

RE. "artificial systems". Now THAT, is a meaningless phrase. First of all, it makes the assumption that humans can do anything that isn't natural, as if we ourselves, are not of nature. Second of all, it implies that social orders are somehow 'not real', and that's just not true. Even other species of animals have social orders. Now, again, this only is meant to apply to the OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE MERIT - it was never meant to assure outcomes.

What you go on to talk about next, is a different issue. Indeed, we have various abilities, talents, etc. We are not all the same in this respect. Nobody is arguing that - certainly not me.

Just because there are situations of inequality, equality is not rendered meaningless. Furthermore, if we can achieve a system where everyone gets a shot at succeeding, it benefits the group as a whole; more people have the chance to develop talents and contribute.

Last tidbit. There's a man named Dr. David Eddy. He was (still is, i think) a respected heart surgeon. One day, he woke up and realized that doctors might be doing too many surgeries, and that decisions in that regard are made without ample data to reference. He saw this data gap throughout the medical field as a whole. So, he went back to school at Stanford, and got a PhD in mathematics. He has dedicated himself since then to bringing the power of data into the practice of medicine.

Leaping forward.... he wrote a book a few years back, in which he discussed his mathematical analysis of heart disease and its causes. Do you know what he discovered to be the factor most strongly associated with developing heart disease?

The gap in that nation between the rich and the poor.


Yes, it may take some artifice to construct a system that engenders this 'for the good of the whole' perspective, given as we are to focus mainly on ourselves, and difficult as it is to attain such an encompassing comprehension (ie, gathering/learning the data)....but this does not render it unnatural, meaningless, or undesirable.

Somehow, we need to strike a balance between allowing individual talents to be expressed, and looking out for one another. Believe it or not, cooperation is just as much a part of our survival as competition.


In sum, it's a very old concept, with clear legal definition, and measurable social benefits.


[edit on 27-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by TrueTruth]




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



I apologize, but I truly don't understand the meaning of your last post. All I meant by 'eggheaded' was 'academic' - and use that pejorative for 2 reasons: one, the thread began with mention of postmodernism, and I had this one prof. in college who loved postmodernism who I hated. Second, I use it to tease mySELF as well, as I tend to come off that way sometimes. In other words, I use it to reference the academic world as opposed to the 'real' world. Egg heads are the residents of the Ivory Towers, so to speak.

Can you tell me how you interpreted what I said, and perhaps rephrase your response for me? I've slept very little this past week - I need some help here.....


thanks.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilishlyangelic23
I dont think that equality is the "end all be all" of goodness. but i do think that its a good starting point to achieve goodness. i am no better than any one else simply because of my skin tone, or income level, or sexual orientation etc...we're all human so we're all equal. and in order for us to really truly make progress in the world, everyone needs to realize that as long as we're all human, we're all equal.


but "equal" means the same, equivalent. i believe in equal RIGHTS, but not in everyone literally being equal.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



Hi.

Can you please flush out a couple of examples demonstrating how the concpet of equality is hurting us as a people?



idk if i'd say it's hurting us, but i think people have become too obsessed with the idea.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 

Let's have gender equality and redress. Let all the men stay home or get cushy office jobs, while women get the high pressurered work, or hazardous jobs with danger pay. To make up for gender discrimination in previous wars, draft all young women into the armed forces and send them to the front-lines.
This would be some of the responses of the men's movement in reply to feminist charges of inequality.
There seems to a notion that the right to be equal is more important than the practical ability to be equal? It reminds me of a charater from the "Life of Brian" who says: "I want to be a woman, it's my right as a man!"


[edit on 27-11-2009 by halfoldman]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes are different things.

Most of the people who hate equality are under the impression that other people are NOT as important as their esteemed selves. It isn't as if in their hatred of equality, they see themselves as the people who get categorized into a lesser state.

When people do buy into the state of instituationalized inequity, and yet they are the people who are taken from, they have been sold an idea that what they are is lesser or that in being lesser they are fullfiling a role. Usually a Divinely Inspired role.

In other words, sure you are lesser, but God told you to be so and that means you gotta accept it.

Finally, those who fight equality (or redefine it) do so with a set of values in mind. They come to see everyone as being judged by some scale they have in their heads. Some better, some worse, some subhuman. Therefore one cannot have equality, because some people do not met their definitional but very limited scale. The unit of measurement used to define your humanity and place varies from person to person.

My favourite is a measurement of the strength of arm. Therefore the person who is very strong is more than the person who is not. This one is used regularly by the misogynisists. There is the unit of measure of religiousity - the more fundamental you are to the local cause the better a human you are. There is the egg-head rule, where only the smart have worth. The monied and resourced, measure the place and worth of another based on their bank account.

Each adherent of these units of measurement for human existence believes absolutely that they can prove that their unit of measure is "natural" and therefore unassailable and obvious. When indeed, each is just a measure of one's own values externalized.

Because they believe that their externalized value set to judge the value of another is natural, they believe that all who fight it are fighting nature. Showing just how much huburus they have, that they believe that their personal value set defines the Universe, and in fighting them one is fighting Nature/The Universe/God. Its somewhat psychotic.



Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Aeons
 



I apologize, but I truly don't understand the meaning of your last post. All I meant by 'eggheaded' was 'academic' - and use that pejorative for 2 reasons: one, the thread began with mention of postmodernism, and I had this one prof. in college who loved postmodernism who I hated. Second, I use it to tease mySELF as well, as I tend to come off that way sometimes. In other words, I use it to reference the academic world as opposed to the 'real' world. Egg heads are the residents of the Ivory Towers, so to speak.

Can you tell me how you interpreted what I said, and perhaps rephrase your response for me? I've slept very little this past week - I need some help here.....


thanks.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Thanks for the reply.

I'm still sort of scratching my head, I must admit.

I'll take this to my simplest example: Does the existance of cruelty render meningless or disingenuous the effort to be kind? Are acts of kindness negated by others being unkind?

Equality is one of those ideals, like Liberty, or Freedom, which is difficult to completely define, but something which involves an intuitive sense of fairness (yes, not all intuitions or instincts are found in all members of any species - that's a given) that you can ever observe in children.

We will constantly need to discuss it, refine its definition, and tweek the structure of society to keep it alive.

What you said is true in terms of human behavior, but none of this is enough to convince me that it does not exist.

Just as there is a mountain of evidence to support the idea that human beings are indeed brutes, there is other evidence of a different aspect of our nature involving kindness and compassion, and if it is ever going to grow or be more frequently expressed, we need to effort to make it so.

I hope this makes sense. I feel like we're having 2 slightly different conversations.

I sense your frustration with the human race, and I sympathize. I have my days like that as well. Those of us who care about fairness and cringe at dominant behaviors - such as sensitive souls like yourself - are easily bruised by this brutality.

Chin up mate. I know this seldome translates...but my spiritual experience have given me a glimpse of the universal nature of us us, which is light, and love. It is what we are. It is the fabric of the universr. And in that universe, we are creators. We can change those behaviors we express, and engender others. We may never achieve perfection in that sense, but in what sense do we ever?

There will be equality on this earth so long as those of us who care, make it so.

MAKE IT SO!!!!

-peace



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Not too worry. I shall fight for equality with my dying breath if need be.

And I mention the fact there are those who are trying to redefine equality to the point that something doesn't mean anything or anything like what it was ever intended to mean.

Like, if the word never exists, it cannot be achieved. Get rid of the word, you can get rid of the idea.

A good example of this would be the speech give by Pres. Ahmadinejad at the UN, where he used all those very good key words about freedoms, and justice and equallity. It sounds lovely, until you go look up that what he MEANS by "equality" doesn't in any way fit what equality means. He is trying to redefine equality as human dignity. You aren't equal, but are only entitled to an equal helping of "dignity." Gosh, golly, gee! Thanks.

This sort of redefinition is unacceptable. Equality isn't a "cultural" word. It is a concept, and playing semantics games to make something more palatable seeming is a form of manipulation that should be fought.

Human Rights are under a massive international attack as a "cultural" conept. That they can be manipulated to fit the meaning given by some fool or tyranant. I will not capitulate to those who wish to define equality and freedom and justice as if they are not inherent concepts.

The reason that this foolish notion of these things being less than solid is the work of those who wish to do away with freedoms and Human Rights altogether. There is no equality without individiual freedoms. There is no justice without individual freedoms. These ideas are concurrent, indivisible, integral as a set to each other.

Equality isn't difficult to understand. It is merely abhorrent to many because it challenges their self-appointed dreams of control.

All those who believe that individuals, other than themselves, are not capable or are unworthy, hate individual freedoms. It fundamentally challenges the idea that they alone control - be that control their wife, or their company, or their nation, or their religion. The individual cannot be entrusted with such power.

You know EXACTLY what equality means.

That most cultures and now this one, are trying to make it a foreign concept by making sure that no one ever can even concieve of it, doesn't make it any less inherent. Every person who has never experienced freedom, and equality knows what they are. They merely never have entertained the thought that such a luxury would ever apply to THEMSELVES.



[edit on 2009/11/27 by Aeons]

[edit on 2009/11/27 by Aeons]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Ah. I think now I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down...

Indeed, language can be co-opted even more easily than a movement. It's a common form of manipulation. And I agree with what you said in terms of how that manifests.


Thanks for taking the time to reword it for me. I'm glad we arrived at the same destination.

Keep fighting the good fight!

-peace



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join