Why does everyone have to be "equal" for society to be fair?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Sometimes when I talk to socialists or just people on the left in general, one thing that I often hear them saying is that they feel that everyone has to be made equal in order for society to be fair.

When I ask them why they say that if people aren't all treated like they are the same then it results in unfairness. However, I have a number of problems with this claim.

Before I continue though I should probably mention that I consider there to be a difference between the people that claim that everyone IS equal and people that claim everyone should be MADE equal. I will address their points separately.

The people that claim everyone is equal/the same:

What they say: Everyone is almost exactly the same, and whatever differences people think exists is all just in their heads. Anyone who claims otherwise is clearly just some racist bigot and thus there is no logical reason for why anyone should concern them self's with whatever differences there might exist between different groups because said differences either don't exist or make no difference anyways. Also, men and woman are exactly the same and anyone who says otherwise simply does so because he hates woman. Also, wanting to be better then someone else at something is evil because that implies people can be better or worse then someone else.

Why this makes no sense to me:

It is true that sometimes differences between groups aren't so big that they pose any kind of a problem, but sometimes people are different enough that there isn't anything wrong with pointing it out. In addition, some people are just not as good at some things as other people are and pointing that out isn't bad either. There should not be anything wrong with wanting to be better then someone else at something, who are they to blame me if I want to say become the best football player in the world for example? How would that make me evil?

To give a real world example, there was a football game that some teenagers were playing, and after the whole thing was over everyone got a medal. And when I say everyone I mean EVERYONE, including the players from the team that lost........

I am sorry, but why did the kids from the team that lost get medals? What did they do to deserve them? The reasoning was that "they were all winners for trying their best", but this is rubbish. You don't reward people simply for trying.

The people that claim everyone should be made equal:

What they say: Largely the same stuff as the earlier group, except that they do actually admit that not everyone is the same and thus strife towards "making" people equal instead of insisting that everyone is equal from the start.

Why this makes no sense to me: If people have to be made equal then they aren't equal, and if they aren't equal then it doesn't have to be because society doesn't let them. Sure, if you live in some capitalist shithole like the USA then there may be lots of people that the system keeps down at the buttom on purpose, but where I live almost everybody enjoys good or even great living standards and people are rarely punished simply for belonging to group X.

In addition, I can also think of no good reason for why everyone HAS to be equal, some people are simply better or worse then the rest for reasons that are perfectly within their own control. Not everybody that runs into problems is having problems because he is being "treated unfairly".

I think one of the most painfully stupid arguments I have heard from people who believe in forced equality is the argument that is used by some (not all, but some) femminists who insist that if place X has more men then woman working in it then the only logical reason to conclude from that is that woman are being discriminated against. Because its not like there are some places where woman are just less likely to want to work, or where woman are just less suited for certain jobs, or perhaps some places just have fewer women by chance or anything right? I mean either every place has EXACTLY as many woman as it has men or else its discrimination against woman, right?

What a giant load of arse.

So what I am asking is this: Why do people HAVE to be equal? What is so horrible about accepting that perhaps some people are just worse or better, and its their own fault?

Thoughts?

To answer the thread title briefly, no.

That being said, I still do not view todays society as fair. (I hate using that word.) To me, fair is having every person start off on a level playing field. Now dont get me wrong - if I had the choice between being born where I was and being born where the majority of the rest of the worlds population popped out, I wouldnt change a thing. But in Europe and the US, its simply not the case. Some people are dealt bad hands while others are well off the day they are born and breeze through life without any major problems or effort on their part. Not to mention the poor fucks that first see the light of day in North Korea or Somalia.

Now, whether a fair society is possible or not, thats a different topic. But thats my own definition of a fair society. Everyone starts on the same level, but what they make out of that is entirely up to the individual.

I think you are misunderstanding the left.

I've always heard, 'Everyone should have equal opportunities.'

You shouldn't be unable to go to college simply because you are poor, unable to be an athlete because you are a woman. You should have the opportunity to go to college regardless of class, the opportunity to join any sport regardless of gender.

Just because you have the opportunity doesn't mean you can rise to it in every case, it doesn't mean everyone will be an athlete, everyone will be a mathematician, etc.

Should someone be barred from trying to be a star football player simply because they're a woman? Barred from joining academia simply because they don't have the connections a rich person would have had? Shouldn't one's place in society stand on their own merit?

Hardcore_gamer:

I think one of the most painfully stupid arguments I have heard from people who believe in forced equality is the argument that is used by some (not all, but some) femminists who insist that if place X has more men then woman working in it then the only logical reason to conclude from that is that woman are being discriminated against. Because its not like there are some places where woman are just less likely to want to work, or where woman are just less suited for certain jobs, or perhaps some places just have fewer women by chance or anything right? I mean either every place has EXACTLY as many woman as it has men or else its discrimination against woman, right?

What a giant load of arse.

This. This SO MUCH.

Women have to spent 9 months to 'develop' one baby.
Men only need to spent like... one minute on this entire process.

Evolution had tried to keep women safe. Men were less important.
Women;
image
Baby needs to be safe.
Men;
image
Need to chase prey.

Men are faster but crash more often.

I think a lot of it comes from living in that "capitalist shithole" you called the USA, where being number 2 may as well be last. Using your football game as an example, did the team that lost play particularly poorly? One of the two teams had to lose, and that fact is not a comment on how well they actually played, yet can be treated as though they have no value because they didn't win. I call this the Olympic paradox where a person placing 4th gets no reward while still being signifcantly better than the rest of the planet simply because the system only allows 3 "winners". Transfer to the ecconomic world and yes, there can be a feeling that effort will only go to one "winner" regardless of personal effort. When someone comes compllaining about how hard they work and how deserving they are of the higher paycheque and lower tax rate, I hear the unspoken idea that people earning less are putting in less or even no effort, and yet, few megacorporations are a one man opperation. Then there are the more extreme examples where the fuck up CEO will get a bonus while the employees that did their job properly get the ax that pervert the ideals being pushed for as it's now "holding the best position" not "doing the best work".

Of course I've run into very few people that argue for true equality, they just get labeled that for asking we re-evaluate our rewards structure and value to the company and society. I beleive my boss should earn more than me, but how much more depends on how much like the pointy haired boss in Dibert he acts like.

It also has a lot to do with the fact that because the rich lie, cheat, steal, and hoard in order to accumulate money, opportunities are being ripped away from everyone in the lower and middle class. The more money these greedy pigs hoard, the less there is for everyone else to even try to earn. And we don't get corporate loopholes and offshore accounts.

The people on the left aren't saying everything has to be "equal". As someone above pointed out, just the opportunities need to be equal. But there's something fundamentally broken about a system where a person can slave away at three jobs and make a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of what some wall street guy makes literally sitting on his ass for an hour. Even Warren Buffet has pointed this out recently: the "work" that so many of the richest people do is NON-work.

Redd the Sock:
I think a lot of it comes from living in that "capitalist shithole" you called the USA, where being number 2 may as well be last.

He's from Iceland. So... yeah. Attributing it to him being from the USA when all you needed to do if you hadn't remembered him mentioning it before was click his profile is just...

everythingbeeps:
It also has a lot to do with the fact that because the rich lie, cheat, steal, and hoard in order to accumulate money, opportunities are being ripped away from everyone in the lower and middle class. The more money these greedy pigs hoard, the less there is for everyone else to even try to earn. And we don't get corporate loopholes and offshore accounts.

The people on the left aren't saying everything has to be "equal". As someone above pointed out, just the opportunities need to be equal. But there's something fundamentally broken about a system where a person can slave away at three jobs and make a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of what some wall street guy makes literally sitting on his ass for an hour. Even Warren Buffet has pointed this out recently: the "work" that so many of the richest people do is NON-work.

And yet, the "non-work" that those incredibly rich people do is generally of a type that no one else is capable of. Their value tends to be in terms of unique and highly valuable skills and experience that less than one percent of the world can equal, even if given the same education.

I won't argue that the system is out of whack, the difference in pay is indeed far too high. Just don't lose sight of the fact that the "non-work" is inherently more valuable than simple sweat equity.

Heronblade:
And yet, the "non-work" that those incredibly rich people do is generally of a type that no one else is capable of. Their value tends to be in terms of unique and highly valuable skills and experience that less than one percent of the world can equal, even if given the same education.

Yeah, I'm going to strongly disagree with this. The top earners in our country make money by investing. That isn't necessarily something that comes from a skill that is useful to society (as seen in the latest economic crisis), all it really requires is a way to game the system.

Mitt Romney has more money than I do because Mitt Romney has always had more money than I ever will. When you can afford to invest in the Cayman Islands, then things stop being an issue of skill and start being an issue of what resources you have at your command.

Personally, I've spent a fair bit of time in both Japan and China. Japan is a capitalistic country, but until recently had a very small wealth gap. Nowadays that gap is expanding (largely due to Japanese business leaders adopting American-style management approaches and exploiting loopholes in employment law to screw the bottom rungs of the employment ladder), but it's still pretty small compared to the US. China OTOH (despite supposedly being a communist country) has an enormous wealth gap. There is something uncomfortable about walking through Shanghai in the shadow of offices full of people who could buy and sell my sorry ass with their pocket change, and then running into a barefoot peasant who envies me because I'll be having lunch. I think it breeds a kind of callousness toward one's fellow human beings. Because anyone with any sense of justice knows it's unfair that you should be living in luxury while someone else starves to death just because one of you was born into a wealthy family and the other wasn't. You end up having to construct a narrative that makes it just, until you actually convince yourself that it's the poor person's fault they are poor.

Hafrael:
I think you are misunderstanding the left.

I've always heard, 'Everyone should have equal opportunities.'

You shouldn't be unable to go to college simply because you are poor, unable to be an athlete because you are a woman. You should have the opportunity to go to college regardless of class, the opportunity to join any sport regardless of gender.

Just because you have the opportunity doesn't mean you can rise to it in every case, it doesn't mean everyone will be an athlete, everyone will be a mathematician, etc.

Should someone be barred from trying to be a star football player simply because they're a woman? Barred from joining academia simply because they don't have the connections a rich person would have had? Shouldn't one's place in society stand on their own merit?

This. Everyone should have opportunities in life. No two people start out life on the same footing, and life is rarely fair. No matter what the outdated American mindset would have you believe.

Heronblade:

everythingbeeps:
It also has a lot to do with the fact that because the rich lie, cheat, steal, and hoard in order to accumulate money, opportunities are being ripped away from everyone in the lower and middle class. The more money these greedy pigs hoard, the less there is for everyone else to even try to earn. And we don't get corporate loopholes and offshore accounts.

The people on the left aren't saying everything has to be "equal". As someone above pointed out, just the opportunities need to be equal. But there's something fundamentally broken about a system where a person can slave away at three jobs and make a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of what some wall street guy makes literally sitting on his ass for an hour. Even Warren Buffet has pointed this out recently: the "work" that so many of the richest people do is NON-work.

And yet, the "non-work" that those incredibly rich people do is generally of a type that no one else is capable of. Their value tends to be in terms of unique and highly valuable skills and experience that less than one percent of the world can equal, even if given the same education.

I won't argue that the system is out of whack, the difference in pay is indeed far too high. Just don't lose sight of the fact that the "non-work" is inherently more valuable than simple sweat equity.

You're joking right? Or do you have anything to substantiate the claim that if we were given the same education we couldn't do the same work? We don't even get the goddamn opportunities because we don't know the people. That's all it takes, not some amazing skill that all CEOs happen to have.

Mortai Gravesend:

Heronblade:

everythingbeeps:
It also has a lot to do with the fact that because the rich lie, cheat, steal, and hoard in order to accumulate money, opportunities are being ripped away from everyone in the lower and middle class. The more money these greedy pigs hoard, the less there is for everyone else to even try to earn. And we don't get corporate loopholes and offshore accounts.

The people on the left aren't saying everything has to be "equal". As someone above pointed out, just the opportunities need to be equal. But there's something fundamentally broken about a system where a person can slave away at three jobs and make a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of what some wall street guy makes literally sitting on his ass for an hour. Even Warren Buffet has pointed this out recently: the "work" that so many of the richest people do is NON-work.

And yet, the "non-work" that those incredibly rich people do is generally of a type that no one else is capable of. Their value tends to be in terms of unique and highly valuable skills and experience that less than one percent of the world can equal, even if given the same education.

I won't argue that the system is out of whack, the difference in pay is indeed far too high. Just don't lose sight of the fact that the "non-work" is inherently more valuable than simple sweat equity.

You're joking right? Or do you have anything to substantiate the claim that if we were given the same education we couldn't do the same work? We don't even get the goddamn opportunities because we don't know the people. That's all it takes, not some amazing skill that all CEOs happen to have.

Bullshit, I'm well aware that having connections to begin with makes matters easier. But all too many of those CEOs started out with exactly the same lack of important contacts the rest of us did. They seized opportunities to advance. We chose not to, and/or were unable to.

Take Herman Cain for example. His unsuccessful bid for the presidency aside, we're talking about a man who was born into a family that had nothing, but rocketed his way into the elite. Whether it is personal charisma, simple intelligence, sheer ambition, and/or something else, he has some quality that you do not. Feel free to seize upon the possibility that protects your personal ego the most.

Heronblade:

Mortai Gravesend:

Heronblade:

And yet, the "non-work" that those incredibly rich people do is generally of a type that no one else is capable of. Their value tends to be in terms of unique and highly valuable skills and experience that less than one percent of the world can equal, even if given the same education.

I won't argue that the system is out of whack, the difference in pay is indeed far too high. Just don't lose sight of the fact that the "non-work" is inherently more valuable than simple sweat equity.

You're joking right? Or do you have anything to substantiate the claim that if we were given the same education we couldn't do the same work? We don't even get the goddamn opportunities because we don't know the people. That's all it takes, not some amazing skill that all CEOs happen to have.

Bullshit, I'm well aware that having connections to begin with makes matters easier. But all too many of those CEOs started out with exactly the same lack of important contacts the rest of us did. They seized opportunities to advance. We chose not to, and/or were unable to.

Take Herman Cain for example. His unsuccessful bid for the presidency aside, we're talking about a man who was born into a family that had nothing, but rocketed his way into the elite. Whether it is personal charisma, simple intelligence, sheer ambition, and/or something else, he has some quality that you do not. Feel free to seize upon the possibility that protects your personal ego the most.

So what's that... 1 example? With not so rigorous proof of Cain's amazing abilities that mere mortals do not posses? An astounding arguemnt, truly. If only everyone based their beliefs on such sparse examples and a lack of any real analysis.

And yes, attack me based on the fact that I questioned your argument that lacks any kind of outside support besides your word that that is how things are. Maybe you can take comfort in that naive idea that we all have the same opportunities in a world run by money.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. The fight for equality has only served to better society. I'm guessing what you're really attacking is the notion that everyone should have the same opportunities in life as everyone else which is equally moronic.

What really determines the success or failure of a person is their character, I believe that is the overwhelming cause.

Trying to make people equal will never change that one factor.

A man who contributes nothing and desires not to in his life will never be equal to anyone who has the will and determination to better their lot in life.

We aren't equal,

However, we should have equal rights, and we should all be treated with equal scrutiny under the law.

Ultimately, we are all damned to be equal: death spares no one.

aPod:
What really determines the success or failure of a person is their character, I believe that is the overwhelming cause.

Do you actually have any proof of that though? I mean really, you seem to have just said that a lot of people in 3rd world nations lack character. Like starving kids. If you acknowledge those then you acknowledge that there is more to it than character, or you make an implicit attack on their character.

Mortai Gravesend:

aPod:
What really determines the success or failure of a person is their character, I believe that is the overwhelming cause.

Do you actually have any proof of that though? I mean really, you seem to have just said that a lot of people in 3rd world nations lack character. Like starving kids. If you acknowledge those then you acknowledge that there is more to it than character, or you make an implicit attack on their character.

Yes, the characters of the people in these countries ARE in fact to blame. Many African countries are still third world shitholes because they are full of corruption and or civil wars. The white man has been out of Africa for a long time now and capitalism isn't to blame for all of this (not to mention that some of the African countries were in fact socialist even if only for a while). There are still good people over there like everywhere else and the starving children you mentioned need help, but the situation in Africa still has very much to do with those places being filled with bad people.

In any case, I think simply pointing at the third world is poor way to support the "everyone is or should be the same" argument. The fact that Africa is still a mess isn't just some result of capitalism or lack of equality, there a tons of other reasons.

AndyFromMonday:
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. The fight for equality has only served to better society.

So if some self proclaimed feminists insists that it should be made into law that every company and every workplace has to have a perfect 1:1 ratio of men and woman working/employed on the bases that anything else is sexism then that betters society?

AndyFromMonday:
I'm guessing what you're really attacking is the notion that everyone should have the same opportunities in life as everyone else which is equally moronic.

Don't put words into other peoples mouths, I never said any such thing.

Hardcore_gamer:
Sometimes when I talk to socialists or just people on the left in general, one thing that I often hear them

Stop right there. You can't say that and then go on to blatantly miss the point that the people on the left hold.

It isn't about everyone being treated the same. It isn't about everyone being totally equal.

It's about equal opportunities. If a female wants to be a construction worker - why can't she? If a man wants to stay at home and look after the kids - why can't he? If a gay man wants his relationship to be recognized by the law - why can't he?

It's about getting rid of restrictions that are placed on people without their consent.

It's not about treating everyone exactly the same all the time. That's ridiculous and no one wants that. Not even the "socialists".

SillyBear:

It's about equal opportunities. If a female wants to be a construction worker - why can't she?

Because being a construction worker requires physical strength that many woman simply don't have? Jobs that require physical strength have just reasons for considering woman to be less likely to perform as well. That's not to say that there aren't any woman who aren't strong enough to be construction workers, but for every woman strong enough there is probably going to be an even stronger male. Why should the efficiency of the whole be weakened simply because some woman want to be construction workers?

By using your logic I could also ask things like "why aren't woman allowed to compete with men during boxing matches?". Nature cursed woman with less physical strength, and while this is not their fault that's the way it is. Not liking it does not make the fact go away.

SillyBear:
It's not about treating everyone exactly the same all the time. That's ridiculous and no one wants that. Not even the "socialists".

Rubbish, I have heard plenty of socialists and femminists who claim exactly that.

Wait, so when did Socialists ever claim that the rich should not have more money than the poor? You are obviously exaggerating because this -WHY DOES EVERYONE HAZ TO BE EQUAL- Is communism. and you are confusnig the two. Which makes people think you're American.

Socialists and Social-democrats wants everyone to have equal -opportunity- And this is something I can get along with -Why does everyone have to be equal- is a bad way to put the question that is essentialy -Why is it good when everyone has equal opportunity- Well let me tell you that. The reason its good and fair that everyone has just about equal -opportunity- (Aka, Soceity chooses to take kids away from shit parents and give some free schooling and such) Is because any other alternative would be cruel, really. Really. Cruel. And some of the right, probably including you. Are almost getting off on the romanticized idea of complete freedom. Youknow, the ending where soceity ends up crumbling do to the corporations taking power instead of the goverment, and while the goverment is obligated by law to uphold the rights of the citizens, corporations arent. If I had to choose between two things, Complete Unequal Freedom leading to No Freedom. Or Limitted Equal Freedom remaining Equal Limitted freedom (With some risk of it becomming less free with time, but since you live in a system where you have equal opportunity you can actually 'afford' to go protest). I would always go for the latter, youknow. Not because im a socialist or a social-democrat. But because liberalism cannot work on its own, and neither can socialism. You need a certain degree of freedom but with complete freedom someone is gonna end up using that freedom to take the freedoms of others, because humans tend to be dicks.

To clarify, Equal Opportunity - Rich cant pay themself to get infront of the poor in line for treatment at the hospital (Equal treatment) The rich has to pay for public schools to attain as high a quality as the private schools even if their kid goes to a private school (Equal education) The Rich gets punished the same as the poor, with nothing called 'bail' (Equal punishment) [And to add a few from Silly] Everyone, despite gender or skincolour. Having the same salary for doing the same job (Equal Rights)

In a 'free' soceity. Prisons will be privately owned and you can pay for your freedom. In a 'free' soceity. The poor will rot in the streets as they wait months to be treated at a hospital because they didnt have the money to bribe the hospital personel. In a 100% 'free' soceity schools will be private and demand a lot of money for education that you have to get if you ever want your kid to earn a living when they grow up, if you are poor you cant get your kid that education and they end up poor like you. Social caste, just like in the early 1800's isnt this just what we wish for in a modern soceity? A completely free soceity, will have goverments working for the benefit of those who pay the highest. Leaving the majority in the dust, and it will be the end of democracy, because just as in the early day of estates, people would get fired if they stood up to this system. And nobody wants to starve.

TLDR: Equal Opportunity, Not Equality in everything. Its called Communism, not Socialism. You arent right just because you say you are.

Hardcore_gamer:
Sometimes when I talk to socialists or just people on the left in general, one thing that I often hear them saying is that they feel that everyone has to be made equal in order for society to be fair.

When I ask them why they say that if people aren't all treated like they are the same then it results in unfairness. However, I have a number of problems with this claim.

Before I continue though I should probably mention that I consider there to be a difference between the people that claim that everyone IS equal and people that claim everyone should be MADE equal. I will address their points separately.

The people that claim everyone is equal/the same:

What they say: Everyone is almost exactly the same, and whatever differences people think exists is all just in their heads. Anyone who claims otherwise is clearly just some racist bigot and thus there is no logical reason for why anyone should concern them self's with whatever differences there might exist between different groups because said differences either don't exist or make no difference anyways. Also, men and woman are exactly the same and anyone who says otherwise simply does so because he hates woman. Also, wanting to be better then someone else at something is evil because that implies people can be better or worse then someone else.

Why this makes no sense to me:

It is true that sometimes differences between groups aren't so big that they pose any kind of a problem, but sometimes people are different enough that there isn't anything wrong with pointing it out. In addition, some people are just not as good at some things as other people are and pointing that out isn't bad either. There should not be anything wrong with wanting to be better then someone else at something, who are they to blame me if I want to say become the best football player in the world for example? How would that make me evil?

To give a real world example, there was a football game that some teenagers were playing, and after the whole thing was over everyone got a medal. And when I say everyone I mean EVERYONE, including the players from the team that lost........

I am sorry, but why did the kids from the team that lost get medals? What did they do to deserve them? The reasoning was that "they were all winners for trying their best", but this is rubbish. You don't reward people simply for trying.

The people that claim everyone should be made equal:

What they say: Largely the same stuff as the earlier group, except that they do actually admit that not everyone is the same and thus strife towards "making" people equal instead of insisting that everyone is equal from the start.

Why this makes no sense to me: If people have to be made equal then they aren't equal, and if they aren't equal then it doesn't have to be because society doesn't let them. Sure, if you live in some capitalist shithole like the USA then there may be lots of people that the system keeps down at the buttom on purpose, but where I live almost everybody enjoys good or even great living standards and people are rarely punished simply for belonging to group X.

In addition, I can also think of no good reason for why everyone HAS to be equal, some people are simply better or worse then the rest for reasons that are perfectly within their own control. Not everybody that runs into problems is having problems because he is being "treated unfairly".

I think one of the most painfully stupid arguments I have heard from people who believe in forced equality is the argument that is used by some (not all, but some) femminists who insist that if place X has more men then woman working in it then the only logical reason to conclude from that is that woman are being discriminated against. Because its not like there are some places where woman are just less likely to want to work, or where woman are just less suited for certain jobs, or perhaps some places just have fewer women by chance or anything right? I mean either every place has EXACTLY as many woman as it has men or else its discrimination against woman, right?

What a giant load of arse.

So what I am asking is this: Why do people HAVE to be equal? What is so horrible about accepting that perhaps some people are just worse or better, and its their own fault?

Thoughts?

Hardcore_gamer:
Jobs that require physical strength have just reasons for considering woman to be less likely to perform as well. That's not to say that there aren't any woman who aren't strong enough to be construction workers, but for every woman strong enough there is probably going to be an even stronger male. Why should the efficiency of the whole be weakened simply because some woman want to be construction workers?

The efficiency of the whole won't be ruined at all. If a women is not strong enough to be a construction worker - she does not get the job.

But there are millions of females who are strong enough to work in construction - so they should not be discounted simply because of their gender. It should be judged on a skill level - not on gender. A strong skilled female should get the job over a weak, unskilled male.

The shit you are saying is similar to what racists were saying in the old days. "Blacks can't be fighter pilots! Blacks are too stupid to know how to do it!" Sure, the majority of black men in the time weren't educated enough to fly planes - but what about the many who were? Why did they have to suffer just because of your stupid preconceived generalizations?

Answer: They don't.

SillyBear:
It's not about treating everyone exactly the same all the time. That's ridiculous and no one wants that. Not even the "socialists".

Rubbish, I have heard plenty of socialists and femminists claim exactly that.[/quote]

No you haven't. You've just misinterpreted that many view points you can't see the difference anymore. The way you have responded to me proves this.

Hardcore_gamer:

SillyBear:

It's about equal opportunities. If a female wants to be a construction worker - why can't she?

Because being a construction worker requires physical strength that many woman simply don't have? Jobs that require physical strength have just reasons for considering woman to be less likely to perform as well. That's not to say that there aren't any woman who aren't strong enough to be construction workers, but for every woman strong enough there is probably going to be an even stronger male. Why should the efficiency of the whole be weakened simply because some woman want to be construction workers?

By using your logic I could also ask things like "why aren't woman allowed to compete with men during boxing matches?". Nature cursed woman with less physical strength, and while this is not their fault that's the way it is. Not liking it does not make the fact go away.

Missed the point slightly, I think.

The question isn't "Why can't all women do X?", it's "Why can't any women do X?".

If there are various strength requirements the person has to fill, then not all men or women will be pass. It doesn't really matter what the proportion is, as long as a person, regardless of their gender, who fits the requirements is allowed to.

thaluikhain:

Hardcore_gamer:

SillyBear:

It's about equal opportunities. If a female wants to be a construction worker - why can't she?

Because being a construction worker requires physical strength that many woman simply don't have? Jobs that require physical strength have just reasons for considering woman to be less likely to perform as well. That's not to say that there aren't any woman who aren't strong enough to be construction workers, but for every woman strong enough there is probably going to be an even stronger male. Why should the efficiency of the whole be weakened simply because some woman want to be construction workers?

By using your logic I could also ask things like "why aren't woman allowed to compete with men during boxing matches?". Nature cursed woman with less physical strength, and while this is not their fault that's the way it is. Not liking it does not make the fact go away.

Missed the point slightly, I think.

The question isn't "Why can't all women do X?", it's "Why can't any women do X?".

If there are various strength requirements the person has to fill, then not all men or women will be pass. It doesn't really matter what the proportion is, as long as a person, regardless of their gender, who fits the requirements is allowed to.

That is more reasonable. If a woman meets the requirments and there aren't any stronger males who also want the job then the woman can have the job. The point that I was originally making is that if there is a stronger male who wants the job then there is no reason he should be rejected simply because of some nonsense rule that demands that there at least a X number of woman working in the same job.

Hardcore_gamer:

thaluikhain:

Hardcore_gamer:

Because being a construction worker requires physical strength that many woman simply don't have? Jobs that require physical strength have just reasons for considering woman to be less likely to perform as well. That's not to say that there aren't any woman who aren't strong enough to be construction workers, but for every woman strong enough there is probably going to be an even stronger male. Why should the efficiency of the whole be weakened simply because some woman want to be construction workers?

By using your logic I could also ask things like "why aren't woman allowed to compete with men during boxing matches?". Nature cursed woman with less physical strength, and while this is not their fault that's the way it is. Not liking it does not make the fact go away.

Missed the point slightly, I think.

The question isn't "Why can't all women do X?", it's "Why can't any women do X?".

If there are various strength requirements the person has to fill, then not all men or women will be pass. It doesn't really matter what the proportion is, as long as a person, regardless of their gender, who fits the requirements is allowed to.

That is more reasonable. If a woman meets the requirments and there aren't any stronger males who also want the job then the woman can have the job. The point that I was originally making is that if there is a stronger male who wants the job then there is no reason he should b

e rejected simply because of some nonsense rule that demands that there at least a X number of woman working in the same job.

/facepalm

So you're issue is actually about crazy affirmative action policies? Why did you have to misinterpret the position of the left to do so? Dude, I don't know anyone in favour of affirmative action that extreme.

Danyal:
This. This SO MUCH.
Women have to spent 9 months to 'develop' one baby.
Men only need to spent like... one minute on this entire process.
Evolution had tried to keep women safe. Men were less important.
Women;
[ugly car]
Baby needs to be safe.
Men;
[another ugly car]
Need to chase prey.

Men are faster but crash more often.

Except men also buy big SUVs (to compensate for having small genitals) and women also buy certain types of sports cars, so your reasoning doesn't fly, at all.

As for faster, it's more a matter of taking risk. Generally speaking men are more prone to taking risks while driving. The more stupid and young and more married traditional and frustrated about their masculinity the more risk is taken.
Obviously not a good thing. The only thing female drivers do wrong that men don't that I'm aware of is driving with high heels. Obviously a bad idea because that forces them to twist their foot rather than just move it up or down to operate the pedals, slowing down their responses significantly.

Then again, that will only kill you in an already emergency situation, the standards set to drivers are ridiculously low to begin with, and often have little to do with actual driving skill, so I guess it's alright to opt to die in case you encounter a freak situation that demands rapid action to avoid a crash.

Blablahb:
Except men also buy big SUVs (to compensate for having small genitals) and women also buy certain types of sports cars, so your reasoning doesn't fly, at all.

Uhm, the idea was not 'women buy Hummers', but 'women are Hummers'. Women and Hummers are both designed to keep their contents safe. They are not designed to go as fast as the Lamborghini, but they won't crash as often and crashes are less deadly.

Hafrael:
I think you are misunderstanding the left.

I've always heard, 'Everyone should have equal opportunities.'

Was gonna post myself but this is it, nail on the head.

Little jack's parents are poor.
Little Jack's parents can't afford proper education.
Little Jack can't go to collage.
Little Jack stays poor.
Jack works really hard in the factory to ear a living, and makes enough to get my each month.

Little Steve's parents are rich.
Little Steve goes to the best schools.
Little Steve finishes business class
Little Steve gets a job at daddies office
Steve barely has to work for his money, makes contacts for the future.
Steve takes over from his dad, the board takes care of everything while Steve rides around on his private jet.

This is the difference is equal opportunities.
Little Jack might be just as suited, or even better at the job then Little Steve, but because he's poor he'll never even get a chance.

Hafrael:
I think you are misunderstanding the left.

I've always heard, 'Everyone should have equal opportunities.'

^ This.

Katatori-kun:

Heronblade:
And yet, the "non-work" that those incredibly rich people do is generally of a type that no one else is capable of. Their value tends to be in terms of unique and highly valuable skills and experience that less than one percent of the world can equal, even if given the same education.

Yeah, I'm going to strongly disagree with this. The top earners in our country make money by investing. That isn't necessarily something that comes from a skill that is useful to society (as seen in the latest economic crisis), all it really requires is a way to game the system.

I'd also say that having that level of cash is what enables you to be able to devote your time to monitoring and investing in the financial markets of your country (and others) in the first place. As you say, it's not necessarily related to skill, so often many are successful in that field purely because they were able to enter it.

Blablahb:

Then again, that will only kill you in an already emergency situation, the standards set to drivers are ridiculously low to begin with, and often have little to do with actual driving skill, so I guess it's alright to opt to die in case you encounter a freak situation that demands rapid action to avoid a crash.

"Driving skill" for road driving is much more about consideration for other drivers and rules of the road than a high level of control of a vehicle at high speeds or under pressure. Crashes more tend to occur through reckless or unexpected manoeuvers, failure to signal appropriately, overaggressiveness, lack of awareness, and so on.

People don't have to be equal, but they need to have equal opportunities. Thing is, though, many of the people who say the same thing don't mean this. They don't care about equal opportunities, otherwise they would love inheritance taxes, free education, both basic and higher, at least basic healthcare, insurance and social safety nets etc.. People aren't born under equal circumstances and people born to a lower class couple have inherently worse chances than those of the upper classes. Many of those who argue for equality of opportunities are against the kind of government intervention that is required if you want to give people the same starting positions. Equality of opportunities cannot be achieved by the government stepping back and not getting involved, completely the opposite is true.

Heronblade:

Mortai Gravesend:

Heronblade:

And yet, the "non-work" that those incredibly rich people do is generally of a type that no one else is capable of. Their value tends to be in terms of unique and highly valuable skills and experience that less than one percent of the world can equal, even if given the same education.

I won't argue that the system is out of whack, the difference in pay is indeed far too high. Just don't lose sight of the fact that the "non-work" is inherently more valuable than simple sweat equity.

You're joking right? Or do you have anything to substantiate the claim that if we were given the same education we couldn't do the same work? We don't even get the goddamn opportunities because we don't know the people. That's all it takes, not some amazing skill that all CEOs happen to have.

Bullshit, I'm well aware that having connections to begin with makes matters easier. But all too many of those CEOs started out with exactly the same lack of important contacts the rest of us did. They seized opportunities to advance. We chose not to, and/or were unable to.

Take Herman Cain for example. His unsuccessful bid for the presidency aside, we're talking about a man who was born into a family that had nothing, but rocketed his way into the elite. Whether it is personal charisma, simple intelligence, sheer ambition, and/or something else, he has some quality that you do not. Feel free to seize upon the possibility that protects your personal ego the most.

I will, thank you; they're psychopaths. No, I'm not joking, trolling, or engaging in hyperbole - the rate of psychopathy or traits which indicate psychopathy are dramatically higher among corporate leaders than in the general population. Simply put, they earn more money because they are the biggest cunts, willing to engage in the type of behaviour that is so cuntish and despicable that, were the man on the street made more aware of it, is the fuel for violent uprisings.

The lunatics are literally in charge of the asylum, and even worse, they designed the security system.

Hardcore_gamer:
So what I am asking is this: Why do people HAVE to be equal? What is so horrible about accepting that perhaps some people are just worse or better, and its their own fault?

Thoughts?

Everyone needs to have equal opportunities.
Some people are smarter, some are stronger, some are more charismatic etc. so they can shine in different fields. Everyone's unique and unequal. What you do should determine how much you're worth, not how much you own.

Personally, I think that a society based around money will always have the problems that we have. Some will get rich and once that will happen, they will be "above" most people, simply because a piece of paper and some numbers on your account are worth more than anything else or anyone else. It's really stupid when you take some time to think about it.

It's hard to imagine a world without money because it has been around for thousands of years and it's almost a part of humanity. But to me, it's one of those cases when a lie told repeatedly over a long period of time becomes the truth. It's like we have brainwashed ourselves into believing that this is OK. Hardly anyone ever questions this order of things and those that do are ridiculed.
To get rid of money however, we would have to reshape everything - the way we live, the way we work, the way we get rewarded for work, the law etc. It would take a lot of time and work. It would also take unity among the nations of the world. So I guess we still have another few millenia to go before the idea of a world without money will become a thing that people will actually take into consideration.

I often find it hilarious when people demand equality already have it. They just forget it's a subjective viewpoint as to what equality means. Numerous other factors as well, but it's a horribly misused word in today's political frame.

@OP:

In a Brave New World, what makes you think you'd be part of the Alpha++ caste? I've noticed a trend in all the threads/discussions on the topic, that people who open it up in a way of "why do we need equality" are automatically assuming that, if we had a caste system, they'd be in the higher echelons.

What-ever makes people think that?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked