Is True Equality Possible (dealingwithit and Rulke)

Intro (dealing with it): Rulke wrote a topic title, and I started by babbling whatever thoughts came to mind. Then we alternated.

I'd like to start by making it absolutely clear that equality does not mean sameness. Complete sameness is impossible by any standard I can imagine, and barely needs any debate. But what, then, is meant by equality? Are we all to have equal opportunities? The natural and arbitrary distribution of talents makes that, too, infeasilble. Should we give an idiot the same opportunities as a rapidly-calculating physicist? Clearly, they both cannot have the same opportunities.

What about rights? Should we have equal rights, if not responsibilities? That, too, seems impossible: a criminal needs to be restrained in a way that a law-abiding citizen does not. The rights of a felon are considerably fewer than that of the lawful.

Rulke

What I think Dealing with it is trying to say is that 'True Equality TM' first has to have a definition and since equality often tied to freedom and liberty is true equality complete freedom? That's what I got from his diatribe, my opinion on this is such, True equality in it's purest form is impossible in fact it could be seen as a negative, since what makes humanity the most unique species on the planet is that we're so diverse and although we have racists, homophobes and bigots, if we removed them then in turn we jeapordize freedom.

Now let's look at this another way, say for example by true equality we mean instead that there is understanding of what's wrong, much like how many look on racism nowadays. We don't force people to change opinions nor do we dictate how they think. Equality in strictest sense could lead to a dystopia if we start preventing opinions and silencing dissent, instead it's makes more sense to accept it's there, but knows it's wrong.

dealing with it:

So, you got me to start babbling about equality of conscience? Each individual counts as a single conscience, equally free as any other to any thoughts it might have? This seems like a reinterpretation of the soul (or the mind, or the ego, or any other name it's gone by. Conscience in my case.)

Rulke

Perhaps, but I'm saying that while True equality often lifted up as an ideal or something we should strive for, you have to ask one question how do you enfore this idealistic dream?

dealing with it:

I suppose in the same way we enforce the war on terror: act as though an abstract concept can be affected in a concrete way. It's a very conveniently confusing word. I still don't have any idea what we're talking about.

Rulke

Very true, very true indeed, I thought in this debate I'd be declaring true equality is the route we should go for, but more I consider and think about it, the more I realize something... It just seems impossible in every sense, because one way you have to crush and silence all dissent, in another you have to enfore this mindset. If you look for equality in purest sense you think about the debate about freedom and how much we can give or how much is too much. It's the same for equality or should I say true equality, how is it ethical to claim what you force on others is for good of all mankind --- and if they refuse they're ostracized.

dealing with it:

... of course I want everyone to be equal to me. I'll get revenge on 'em all...

Rulke

It's much like fighting a war for overall peace, it's a Catch-22, a example of insanity. True equality seems good on paper, but then you consider logistics and what would need to change, I'm tempted to say we'd never get int properly without brainwashing and cloning same person ad-nauseum, congrats you got your shangri la, only there one thing we forget to tell you, you've lost what made you human. Plus pretty sure all that is illegal and um I'll be blunt here totally and utterly unethical.

dealing with it:

You have your Catch-22, I have my Man in the Asbestos Suit.

Rulke

Touche, honestly when it comes down to it, how many people actually consider the factors when they ask for true equality?

dealing with it:

The web of causality is vast. It's impossible to measure everything that gets effected by one little change.

Rulke

But is it one little change, to achieve what suggested here either it's brain washing or loss of identity (as far as that goes, that topic is for another day). It's just vast, it's not even one change needed, it's about five (pulled out my ass) for example.

dealing with it:

If it's equality of the "soul" that we're looking for, brainwashing is definitely an issue. What about all the people that don't believe that a single human is an individual?

Rulke

I don't really know, seems like we've come to a stalemate here, and perhaps we should allow others to join in. Although in conclusion I think it's safe to say those who preach for true equality much like those who preach for complete freedom, have no real ideas of the implications they're suggesting or how such ideas and ideals would be made to stay, any thoughts on your end?

dealing with it:

All fundamentalists are equally absurd to me. Sticking to one ideal as though it settles everything, , and as though it cannot be improved, is ... equally... blind. Terrorism is universally bad, drugs are universally bad, equality is always good, freedom is always good, science is the answer to everything...

Rulke

As is often said, 'One persons Terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.'

What is everyone else's thoughts on this?

No. Things will never be truly equal among groups, genders, races, and so on because someone will always be ahead and others will always be behind. Not meaning that if you're rich you'll stay rich, you could go broke. That would mean you aren't exactly equal to the people with a lot of money or more money.

It's not possible, we all should know that at this point. But, we can work to make things far more equal than they are.

Equality is possible. But humankind will go extinct long before they reach that level of cultural/spiritual/intellectual advancement.

Bump because like to hear more thoughts.

First of all, I believe that true equality would be a negative thing, if it's even possible, but I won't go into that. So think about it this way. An army has to have a general. If every single person was equal, then there would be no order, and the army would be destroyed by its opponent, assuming this opponent's army is not all equal. If every person's say was as equal as another's, that would mean that we would have to stop and consider every other person's views before we decide on our own, because if we decided without doing that, that means that we would believe our own views, and by extension ourselves, to be better than another's. All in all, it's not efficient and I believe that it would be rather tedious.

There where places where the dream of equality as humanly possible was a reality for some years.

In the Kibbutzim (communist communes) there was utter equality of rights, duties etc. some even held councils to debate the naming of a new born child.

Unlike other communist experiments there where no single leader entities; there where workers councils which involved every one in the community. These communes eventually chose to part ways with communism because the younger generation wanted to have a higher life style however they still maintain a bit of their communal past such as dining halls.

Even this was not total equality as some here said however it was in my opinion the closest as humans may strive to equality.

My motto on this matter is "while there is wealth there shall be no justice"
I understand that wealth and currency are things that we must have to maintain our economy however It is impossible to have a just society let alone a equal one while there is wealth.

It matters not what laws are passed and how many efforts are made wealth conquers all. Any thing and everything to which the curse of money comes in contact with can never again be trusted. Money is greed, its the single most powerful antagonist which makes even equality of opportunities and rights nearly impossible. If you have money people will here you, if you have money people will see you, if you have money people will be you. Wealth does not allow equality, no matter what laws are in place will automatically make them all meaningless and grant the owner of such wealth all the rights he wants depending on his wealth.

For wealth people are killed, lied to, betrayed, psychically and mentally harmed. Wealth is the origin point of corruption and while there is corruption there will never be equality.

The single truth about all that exists is "survival of the fittest" if you can't fight for you rights by the laws of nature you do not deserve them. It is inevitable that those with power shall govern those without and those of lesser power. Any system which is created to attempt to make equality is meaningless because eventually it shall also fall to corruption. Even if wealth is eliminated something will take its place because money is simply the illusion which represents wealth.

Rulke wrote:[b]Should we give an idiot the same opportunities as a rapidly-calculating physicist? Clearly, they both cannot have the same opportunities.

I disagree. Many "handicapped" people with a diagnosed form of autism are in fact, gifted with more focus and can easily surpass your average professional mathematician in terms of calculating speed. Quoting that as one of the reasons why they should be given equal opportunities at start. The concept of Equality places high value in the aspect of Possibility.

Now of course, this is an ideal situation. This is also what some of current society is striving for, however, the number of "gifts" a person can have continuosly expands as time (and human development) goes on. At the same time, this ratio proportionately decreases the number of opportunities we can provide to discover them -with current resources and finances which may or may not increase.

Ergo, yes True Equality is possible, though it requires an equilibrium between the number of recognized "gifts", the number of opportunities we can give a person to find them, and the resources it takes to find/develope/yield those gifts into a result.

Rulke wrote:
As is often said, 'One persons Terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.'

Nope, a terrorist is always a terrorist and a scumbag. Freedom fighters fight against oppression towards innocents. terrorists make people think they are fighting against oppression towards innocents.

Aka.

Freedom fighters = Butter
terrorist = hydrogenated vegetable oil

flickery,

Freedom fighters fight against oppression towards innocents. terrorists make people think they are fighting against oppression towards innocents.

Let's say I'm really gullible. How would I be able to tell the difference between someone fighting against oppression and someone who has merely made me think they are fighting against oppression? Is there one?

Liiiiiiiiive!! I will breathe life into this once more!

dealing with it wrote:flickery,

Freedom fighters fight against oppression towards innocents. terrorists make people think they are fighting against oppression towards innocents.

Let's say I'm really gullible. How would I be able to tell the difference between someone fighting against oppression and someone who has merely made me think they are fighting against oppression? Is there one?

Not to get too technical here (or derail an otherwise productive discussion of equality), but I don't think it's really accurate to set up freedom fighters and terrorists as opposites or mutually exclusive. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or political position. States can carry out terrorism, as can insurgents, but the distinction should always be limited to the tactics they employ rather than the political ground they stand upon. Definitions of what constitutes a terrorist tactic may vary somewhat, but it's generally agreed upon that attacks on civilian or noncombatant populations with the intent of sending a political message constitute acts of terrorism (you get into more grey areas with things like the Lebanon barracks bombing and the USS Cole, but I don't think the distinctions there are particularly pertinent to the point I'm trying to make). Whether one is a government agent or an insurgent actor shouldn't really have any bearing on whether somebody qualifies as a terrorist.

Of course, if you're really gullible, I don't know that here's really any hope for you in the first place!

As far as true equality goes, I'm skeptical, since I'm generally of the opinion that human natures pushes man towards conflict, and conflict naturally creates winners and losers. That said, I'm equally skeptical of the likelihood of reducing the murder rate to zero, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a fully invested effort to do so.